Madhya Pradesh Court March 2014 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.
Sonu Prood Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
M.Cr.C No.2284/2014 10.03.2014 Shri R.K Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondent/State. This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.for offence under Section 363, 366, 342, 376 of IPC and section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in connection with Crime No.41/2014 registered at Police Station Madanmahal, Jabalpur. According to prosecution on 17/01/2014 prosecutrix aged 15-16 years was kidnapped and raped by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that between the same parties in the month of October, 2013 a case was registered for kidnapping and during pendency of investigation/trial of this case, this second case also registered. In fact it was case of consent by prosecutrix, who had attained age of discretion. Petitioner is young boy of 21 years and is in custody since 20th January, 2014. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for State subm...
indrajeet Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
M.Cr.C No.1913/2014 10.03.2014 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondent/State. This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.for offence under Section 364, 365, 395, 397, 120B, 201, 419, 471, 450 of IPC in connection with Crime No.798/2013 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shahdol. According to prosecution on 2/09/2013 petitioner and 3 other accused person kidnapped one Bhuwan Mohan Jaiswal for ransom. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 06/10/2013 petitioner has been arrested and nothing incriminating has been recovered from him except shoes, one nokia mobile of his own and piece of cloth Gamcha. Learned counsel further submits that in identification on 26/12/2013 complainant failed to identify petitioner. This court has released similar Co.accused Shubham Shrivastava on bail on 18/02/2014 in M.Cr.C.No.1843/2014, claiming parity prays for grant of bail to present petiti...
District Bar Association Jablapur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judg ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Writ Petition No.6784/2006 10.03.2014 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the respondent Municipal Corporation. Ms.Anjali Banerji, Advocate for the respondent no.11 Cantonment Board. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate for the respondent no.15/ National Highway Authority. Counsel for the State has invited our attention to the compliance report filed in response to the order dated 5.2.2014. However, the Executive Engineer, PWD, asserts that for want of sufficient workforce to remove the encroachments, he may not be in a position to do anything in the matter. It is stated that the said Executive Engineer has written to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, and to the Collector to provide necessary logistical support. That has happened long time back. We find force in the argument of the petitioner that unless the encroachments are removed, the road wi...
Pradeep Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Criminal Revision No.56/2014 10.03.2014 Shri Umesh Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Shri AdaRs.Muni Trivedi, Sr.Advocate with Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the objector. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.490/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.4.2013 at about 10:15 PM the applicants surrounded the victim Mukul Pandey. The applicant Pradeep Sahu assaulted him by a sword on his head, whereas the applicant Sonu assaulted by baseball bat causing injury on his left eye. The remaining applicants assaulted him by the base of a revolver on his head and some other persons assaulted the vic...
Phool Chand Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Writ Appeal No :: 63 / 2008 Phool Chand Tekam versus State of MP and others 07.03.2014. Shri S.D.Khan and Shri N.K.Mishra for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. This appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, calling in question tenability of order-dated 15.11.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15465/2007(S).Appellant herein was an ex-serviceman and was appointed as a driver by the respondents in the contingency paid establishment for a period of 89 days. His services were extended from time to time, but he was not granted regularization nor was any benefit of regular pay scale granted to him. Accordingly, he sought for his regularization and grant of regular pay. This Court in Writ Petition No.7124/2003, vide order dated 30.1.2004 directed the respondents to consider his claim for regularization and take a decision within a period of four month. It seems that nothing ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sunil Saxena Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Writ Appeal No :: 833 / 2013 State of MP and others versus Sunil Saxena 07.03.2014. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/appellants. Shri Amit Verma for the respondent. This appeal has been preferred by the State under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, calling in question tenability of order- dated 17.1.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3843/2009. Facts in brief go to show that the respondent/employee was engaged by the department as an Assistant Electrician-cum- Wireman on 30.3.1979. He was working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment and with effect from 1.5.1984, he was paid salary in the pay scale ` 515-800/-. Alongwith the respondent one Prakash Nigam was also working as an Assistant Electrician-cum-Wireman, but it seems that Shri Nigam was drawing salary of lower scale of ` 400-525/-. In view of the aforesaid disparity in the pay scale, Shri Nigam challenged his pay fixation by fi...
Brajgopal Singh Swarnkar Vs. Girish Raisen Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
M.Cr.C No.8149/2013 07.03.2014 Shri Deependra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for the respondent. Present petition is directed by the complainant against the judgment dated 23/05/2013 passed by JMFC (FTC) Bhopal in R.T.No.4918/2009 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act).on the ground that cheque in question was not proved to have been issued for discharging any debt or legal recoverable liability by the respondent/accused. Necessary facts, in short, are that on 26/10/2008 respondent signed and issued a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- payable at State Bank of India, Branch Vindhyachal Bhopal and asked the petitioner to submit the cheque after 15 th November, 2008. On 18/11/2008 aforesaid cheque was bounced for want of funds, then on 15/12/2008 petitioner issued notice through his counsel and thereafter on 28/01/2009 preferred complaint in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal. Learned counsel for petit...
Shakeel @ Anes Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
M.Cr.C.No.12180/2013 6/03/2014 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Amit Pandey, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the third application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The earlier two applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7/03/2013 and 17/05/2013. Applicant has been arrested on 15/12/2012 in connection with Crime No.231/2012 registered at P.S.Silwani, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 353, 332, 333, 294, 506, 427, 149 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after withdrawal of second application charge sheet has been filed but despite repeated efforts complainants are not appearing before the trial Court. In support of aforesaid contention, he has filed the order sheets of the trial Court. It is further submitted that as per prosecution itself at the time of incident applicant was in the bullock cart alongwith his father and they said to ha...
Mohanlal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Writ Petition No.3560/2014 06.03.2014 Shri Harshit Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. The petitioner had made representation to the Sub Divisional Officer which came to be rejected. The petitioner was advised to take up the matter before the Commissioner by way of appeal. That proceedings, however, have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Counsel for the State submits that there is additional reason why no indulgence be shown to the petitioner. According to him the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to prefer appeal before the Collector as per the statutory provision. The fact remains that the petitioner had resorted to remedy of appeal but before a wrong forum. The Commissioner ought to have examined that aspect. Instead, the Commissione...
Diwakar Prasad Tiwari Vs. Manoj Kumar Patel Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
M.Cr.C.No.3342/2014 6.3.2014 Shri Amilesh Chaturvedi, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.494/2006 lodged by the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The facts of the case in short are that, the respondent has moved a complaint before the trial Court that some amount was due towards the applicant and therefore, on 14.6.2004 a notice was sent through the Bank and therefore, a compromise took place on 1.3.2005. The applicant gave a cheque of Rs.62,000/- to the respondent. When the cheque was submitted to the Bank on 18.3.2005, it was dishonored. Thereafter, the respondent met the applicant and the applicant assured that he will get some amount from Ban Sagar Project and therefore, the cheque be submitted again. Thereafter, when the cheque was submitted for the second time, it was found that the applicant directed to stop the payment of the cheque and therefore, the chequ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »