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. Kalyan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.7916/2013 30.9.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) against the judgment dated 10/5/13 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act)).Sehore in Special Case No.43/2012, whereby respondents Kalyan Singh and Dharam Singh have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 450 read with 34 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27/1/12 when the prosecutrix was in her hut along with her kid, respondents trespassed thereinto and respondent no.2 Dharam Singh subjected her to rape. Upon her screaMs.her mother-in- law came. Respondent no.1 Kalyan was able to flee, but he also had a lustful eye upon...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Radheshyam @ Parasram Kirar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.12712/2013 30.9.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State. Heard on I.A.No.21477/13 for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to appeal. As per Office note, the application is barred by 63 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the application is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) against the acquittal of respondent Radheshyam alias Parasram Kirar of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 343, 366, 376 and 506 of the IPC. The impugned judgment was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.340/12 on 17/4/2003. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/4/12 at about 11 p.m., when the prosecutrix was alone in her house and resting in the Courtyard, respondent asked her fo...
NitIn Rajput @ Rinku Vs. Smt. Monik Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P.No.16508/2013. 30.9.2013. Shri D.K.Melani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/husband/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2012 (Ann. P.1).passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur whereby allowing the application of the respondent/ plaintiff he has been directed to pay her Rs.2,500/-p.m.as interim alimony for herself and the minor daughter. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through papers placed on record along with the impugned order argued that main application has been filed by the respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (In short the Act).for divorce, in which after framing the issues the deposition of the respondent has been recorded and in such deposition she categorically stated that she does not want to live with the petitioner then in that circumstances she is not entitled to get any interim alimony from the petitioner und...
Nandlal Savner Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Cr.A.No.2099/2010 30.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. 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 27.9.2010 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.141/2007, whereby respondents Meena, Sangeeta, Sunita, Rinki, Sulaibai, Sonubai and Sanju have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323/149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).whereas respondents Dilip and Shiv have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506, 148, 307/149, 307 and 323/149 of the IPC and respondents Babulal and Vijay have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506, 148, 307/149, 307 and 323/149, but Babulal has been convicted under Section 326 while Vijay has been convicted under Section 326/34 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/3/2007 at about 4 ...
Narayan Singh Mewada Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Cr.A.No.2316/2010 30.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Ashish Sinha, 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 31.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.153/2007, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 6 namely Pramod, Pratap, Ajay, Padam and Smt. Upma have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).respondent no.2 has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Arms Act while respondent Nos.3 and 5 have also been acquitted of the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, whereas respondent no.6 has been convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5/6/2007 at about 9 a.m., complainant Narayan Singh Mewara (PW2) along with hi...
Devendra Kumar Haldkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Writ Petition No.1848/09 30.09.2013 Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasia, learned Govt. Adv.for the State/respondents no.1 & 2 on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (i) That the Honble Court may please to call the record from respondents No.1 & 2 as mentioned in Annexure-P-1 and after perusal of record set aside the order passed by respondent no.1 on 10.6.2008. (ii) That the Honble Court issue a writ of Mandamus against the respondent no.1 to send the matter to the police for registering the offence against the respondents no.3 & 4 within a stipulated time. (iii) The Honble Court alternatively direct the respondent no.1 to consider the complaint send by Additional Commissioner and enquire himself and send the matter to police for registering the offence as per law against the respondents...
Manish Palewar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9044/2013 Manish Paliwal and others..Petitioners Versus The State of Madhya PradeshRespondent For the petitioners : Shri Jagat Sher Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari and Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocates. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. D. RATHI ****** ORDER (30.9.2013) The following order of the Court was passed by : Ajit Singh, J.By this petition, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet as well as charges framed against them.2. The case of prosecution is that on 7.2.2012 one Devendra Singh had deposited the requisite fee and made an online application for transit passbook. At that time co-accused Norbortus Lakra was posted as Mining Officer, Tikamgarh, and he demanded a bribe from Devendra Singh for delivering transit passbook. Devendra Singh, therefore, lodged...
Hirouaa (Died) Th:lrs. Bhaiyalal Vs. Ayodhya Prasad (Died) Th:lrs. Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P No.9355 of 2013 30.9.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, counsel for the petitioners. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.12 passed by the Board of Revenue/ respondent No.11 in Revision No.921-Two/2007 whereby their revision has been dismissed as abated on account of non-bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Hiraua within the prescribed period of limitation.2. In the course of arguments, in view of provision of section 43 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code read with order 22 rule 3, Order 22 rule 9 and section 5 of the Limitation Act, on making certain query regarding entertainability of this petition because the remedy to file the appropriate proceedings for setting aside the abatement of the revision is available to the petitioner before the Board of Revenue itself then petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appropriate application for setting aside the a...
Ramnath Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. SOLANKI Criminal Appeal No.419/1997 Ramnath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Aditya Singh, P.L. for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT (30.09.2013) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in S.T. No.164/1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years.2. Facts in short, are that deceased Jayesh Kumar and appellant/accused Ramnath were doing some mining work as partners. There was some monetary dispute in this regard. On 05.02.1993, in the evening, appellant called Jayesh Kumar to his house, where he was brutally beaten by the appellant. After receiving the aforesaid information, brother of Jayesh Kumar and his colleague went to the hou...
Mahendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
W.P.No.22041/2012 Mahendra Singh State of M.P.& others 30.9.2013 Shri Alok Kumar, counsel for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri A.S.Jha, learned Senior Advocate with Shri B.M.Prasad, counsel for respondent no.5. Shri Greesham Jain, counsel for intervener Chakresh Jain. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a fair and impartial enquiry in the matter of illegal excavation and illegal blasting by respondent no.5 and against the authority concerned who have failed to discharge their duty to provide assistance in such illegal act of respondent no.5. (ii) That, a criminal and legal proceeding as per law, be ordered against the guilty person authority concerned for such illegal excavation and action as published in the newspaper and agitated by the petitioner in his application. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to cancel the quarry le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »