Madhya Pradesh Court September 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5577/2013 23.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29/12/2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.209/11, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 28/6/2011 at about 2 p.m., Jagdish (since deceased) had gone with the respondent on his Motorcycle for obtaining documents of vehicle. At around 10 p.m, their family members came to know that some mishap had occurred with both of them and, upon search, they found that Motorcycle of deceased was lying on Khunajhir road while his dead body was lying nearby in the valley. Upon investigation, it surfaced that, wh...
Dr. Ravinath Tiwari Vs. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 W.P No.16213 of 2013 23.9.2013 Shri Brahmendra Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner one of the defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.13 passed by II Civil Judge-II in Co.No.43-A/13 whereby his application filed under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the CPC for deleting his name from the array of the suit, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the plaint so also with the other papers placed on the record argued that on taking into consideration the entire pleadings of the plaint as accepted in toto even then the cause of action is not available to the respondent/ plaintiff against the petitioner to file the impugned suit. As such, the cause of action is available against the State authorities and, in such premises, the petitioner being Public servant has been wrongly impleaded as defendant in the matter and prayed for ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sandeep Jaiswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9107/2013 23.9.2013 Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate, for the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Jabalpur/applicant. Heard on admission. This application for grant of special leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of respondent nos.1 to 7 of the charges under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and respondent no.8 of the charge under section 420 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Mithilesh Jain (P.W.1) had filed a complaint case under section 200 along with an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Special Judge, Katni, who allowed the same and directed the appellant to register fiRs.information report in respect of the offences alleged therein. Mithilesh Jain in his complaint sated that respondent nos.1 to 7 while working on their respective posts during the period from 1.3.2005 to 4.5.2006 conspired and invited tenders...
Kaluram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.12584/2012 1 23.09.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be dis...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lakhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.793/2008 23.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12/10/2007 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.137/06, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 11/6/06 at about 8.30 p.m., near the house of Kishore Kachchi at Gangasagar Mohalla, Chhatarpur, respondents in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Purshottam alias Bhaiya Dhobi. Learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with. Having regard to t...
Smt. Shakeela Bano Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16195/2013 1 23.09.2013 Shri Pradeep Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ261 and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(S) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Cou...
Tejlal Dehriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5722/2011 23.09.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicant by this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has challenged the order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.257/2010 whereby the criminal revision filed by the applicant was dismissed and the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the JMFC in Criminal Case No.5342/2006 was confirmed in which trial court dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.The brief facts of the case are that one criminal trial was submitted against the applicant for the offence under Sections 467 and 409 of IPC because he caused a lose of Rs.27,800/-. He was given some amount by the department to spend and to submit the voucher but he could not submit the voucher and it was found that he usurped a sum of Rs.27,800/-, and therefore a charge sheet was filed for the offenc...
Rashmi Chourasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Cr.A.No.1737/2012 23.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.6.2012 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in Sessions Trial No.164/2009, whereby respondent nos.2 to 6 namely Kanhaiyalal, Ajay, Mukesh, Kalabai and Chetnabai have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).whereas respondent no.1 Ajay has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Marriage of complainant Rashmi Chourasiya was solemnized with respondent no.2 Kanhaiyalal on 22/12/2004. Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting the complainant to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and on 2/4/09, she was admitted for treatment of burn injuries at District Hospita...
Shrikrishna Chandra Das Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.11620/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be dispose...
Kashinath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2386/2011 23/09/2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chille, GA for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.14065/13, third application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under section 376 (2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years & fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that initially prosecutrix made allegation against the three accused persons in regard to committing rape on her but at the trial she specifically stated that other co-accused Santram has not committed rape on her therefore, her statement is not reliable. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »