Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2016
1
M.Cr.C.No.8171/2015
10/3/2016
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.H. Ansari, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Both the parties are present before me. Applicant husband submits that he is willing to keep the wife with him, but the respondent wife submits that her child respondent No.2 has died during the pendency of the petition and the husband treats her with cruelty.
The petition pertains to grant of maintenance. The respondent wife is directed to move appropriate application for execution of the proceedings.
Let the record of the lower Court be sent to the trial Court immediately for passing appropriate orders in execution. The arrears of maintenance have not been paid by the petitioner for the last more than five months. The Trial Court is directed to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
2
M.Cr.C.No.10323/2015
10/3/2016
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ashok Garg, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Girish Desai, learned Counsel respondent /complainant.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time to file certain documents.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to file the documents required for adjudication.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 3 M.Cr.C.No.10436/2015 10/3/2016 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, prays for time.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.10985/2015 10/3/2016 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This Court had directed to file status report regarding the representation given by the applicant's mother that the applicant was not present on the place of incident. Despite grant of two opportunities Counsel for the respondent is praying for time.
4In view of the above, Head constable of the Mahakal police Station, Ujjain shall remain present before this Court on the next occasion.
List on 16.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1742/2016 10/3/2016 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
List on Monday i.e. 14.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 5 M.Cr.C.No.2328/2016 10/3/2016 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Issue notices to the respondent No.2 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the case shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent No.1.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 6 M.Cr.C.No.2333/2016 10/3/2016 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent is directed to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant and also to produce the case diary.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 7 Cr.A.No.1009/2015 10/3/2016 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the lower Court is not yet received. Registry is directed to requisition the same positively within a week.
List in the week commencing 28.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 8 Cr.A.No.502/2009 10/3/2016 Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant did not comply with the corder dated 12.1.2016. He is directed to pay fresh process regarding the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondents.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 9 Cr.A.No.480/2010 10/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Service report regarding issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against appellant Gurvinder Singh is awaited.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.921/2010 10/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Service report regarding the bailable warrant issued against the appellant No.1 is awaited.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 10 M.Cr.C.No.1459/2010 10/3/2016 Shri Akhlaque Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.9263/2015, which is an application for substituted service by publication.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is avoiding service of notice and hence, the notices could not be served.
On considering the above, the application I.A. No.9263/2015 is allowed. Office is directed to prepare the notice on payment of necessary charges as per rules and hand over the same to learned Counsel for the petitioner for publication in a local daily News Paper 'Dainik Bhaskar' within a period of four weeks.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to file the compliance report thereafter.
List in the week commencing from 18.4.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 11 Cr.R.No.704/2011 10/3/2016 Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the I.A. No.1366/2016 since the order, which he wants to recall, is stayed on 23.2.2016 and has merged into the same.
On perusal of the order sheets, I find that the prayer is reasonable and hence, the application I.A.No.1366/2016 is dismissed as not pressed. However, it is reiterated that the execution proceedings shall remain stayed as per order dated 23.2.2016.
List for final disposal in the month of April, 2016, as prayed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 12 Cr.A.No.1233/2011 10/3/2016 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant is again prays for time to keep the appellant No.6 Yogesh Yadav present before this Court.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant No.6 present before this Court on 29.3.2016. Failure to do so, non-bailable warrant shall be issued against the appellant on the next date.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 13 Cr.A.No.498/2012 10/3/2016 Shri I. Rathore, learned Counsel appears on behalf of appellant No.3 Ajabsingh. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the bail order has been availed by the appellants. However, the appellant No.3 Ajabsingh is not present today. In view of the above, Counsel for the appellant is directed to keep the appellant No.3 present before this Court on 29.3.2016.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 14 Cr.R.No.904/2012 10/3/2016 Shri Ghanshyam Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in Bherugarh jail, Ujjain.
In view of the above, let production warrant be issued against the appellant for his appearance before this Court in proper custody on 29.3.2016.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1076/2012 10/3/2016 Ku. Pooja Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is unable to keep the petitioner present before this Court 15 Service report regarding bailable warrant issued against the petitioner is awaited.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.466/2013 10/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Report regarding bailable warrant issued against the appellant No.1 is awaited.
List after two weeks.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1020/2013 16 10/3/2016 Shri H.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2, though duly served.
Last opportunity is granted to the respondent No.2.
List in the week commencing 28.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No. 1778/2013 10/3/2016 Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Ku. Pooja Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
17Counsel for the applicants prays for one last opportunity to comply with the order dated 22.2.2016 .
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1349/2010 09/3/2016 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2007/2016, which is an application for grant of suspension of jail sentence 18 regarding appellant No.3 Deepak Bhil.
Counsel for the appellant is again praying for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant No.3 Deepak. He submitted that the appellant was in another State to get his livelihood and hence he could not appear before this Court on the date set by the Registry. This Court had already observed that after issuance of perpetual warrant of arrest on 30.11.2011, 11.1.2012 and 5.3.2012 the appellant was arrested two months ago. He was absconding more than two years.
In view of the above, I find that there is no good ground for grant of suspension of jail sentence to the present appellant since he has misused the liberty granted to him. The application is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.914/2016 09/3/2016 19 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to produce the case diary.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1772/2016 09/3/2016 Shri R.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 20 21 M.Cr.C.No.2184/2016 09/3/2016 Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ramesh Gangrade, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 22 M.Cr.C.No.805/2016 09/3/2016 Shri Girish Desai,learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1768/2016 09/3/2016 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to produce the case diary.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to produce the case diary.
23List on 15.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.12/1999 09/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.4 was absent on 19.1.2016. Time was granted by this Court on 10.2.2016 to keep the appellant present before this Court today, but none appears today.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant No.4 for his appearance before this Court on 5.4.2016. Notices be issued to the Surety also as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
24List on 05.4.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.293/2004 09/3/2016 Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to keep the appellant present before this Court.
By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant present before this Court.
List on 22.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 25 M.Cr.C.No.1318/2016 08/3/2016 Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
By this third application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Sultan Singh has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.19/2008 registered by police station Uday Nagar, Dewas for offence under Sections 147, 148,149, 456,353,332,323,395 of the IPC and 3/ 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and 25 of the Arms Act.
Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted the fact this is the third application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Counsel submitted that the applicant is 75 year old person and he is suffering from cancer. Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
This Court had, therefore, directed that the medical paper should be produced and he should be put to test. The CHL-CBCC indicates on discharge 26 summary that there was no organo megaly, CNS-NAD and the blood pressure appears to be normal.
Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant. Despite the fact that some of the co- accused persons have been granted bail. He submitted that the applicant was absconding since the year 2008 and this is the third application. Hence the applicant do not deserve any sympathy for grant of anticipatory bail and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, considering the medical report and the fact that the applicant was absconding since the year 2008, I find that one opportunity should be granted to the applicant. It is, therefore, directed that the applicant shall surrender himself before the competent Court within a period of 07 days i.e. on or before 14.3.2016 before the Competent Court and if he shall file an application for regular bail before the Competent Court within the said period, the Trial Court shall consider the application immediately, considering the medical papers in accordance with the provisions of law.
27Needless to say that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case. It is also directed that till then the applicant shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicant shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.
C. c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 28 M.Cr.C.No.9773/2015 08/3/2016 None for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a fixed date to keep the Investigating Officer present before this Court.
List on 15.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.664/2012 08/3/2016 Shri Bharat Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Gaurav Rawat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri T.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Ku. Hemlata Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.792/2014. Reserved for orders on the I.A. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 29 Cr.R. No.704/2012 08/3/2016 Shri Ajay Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the respondent. Both the Counsel submitted that the matter could be disposed off.
List in the next week for final disposal.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R. No.1161/2013 08/3/2016 Ku. Pooja Jain, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that she was unable to keep the petitioner No.1 Dharmendra present before this Court.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner No.1 for his appearance before this Court on 29.3.2016. Notices be issued to the Surety also as to why the surety amount 30 be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C. No.7109/2015 08/3/2016 Mrs. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard on admission.
Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 31 M.Cr.C. No.7523/2015 08/3/2016 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tarun Sethi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mrs. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 prays for a short time to file reply.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C. No.8362/2015 08/3/2016 Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
32Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R. No.1184/2013 08/3/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The petitioner was absent on 22.1.2016 and today also none appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner for his appearance before this Court on 29.3.2016. Notices be issued to the Surety also as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 33 Cr.A. No.1296/2013 08/3/2016 Shri Jitendra Bajpayee, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant Amrish Katare is present in person. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has availed the bail. The appellant undertakes to remain present before this Court/Registry.
The appellant is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/3/2016 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
Call for the record.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 34 Cr.A. No.1517/2013 08/3/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the appellant prays for time. List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A. No.2601/2013 08/3/2016 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. Issue fresh notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
At this juncture, Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of stay vide I.A.No.7539/2013.
35Counsel for the appellant submits that more than half of the awarded amount has been deposited in the lower Court. The receipts regarding payment of Rs.6,68,798/- has been filed along with the appeal memo.
In view of the above, the application is allowed and the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. No disbursement shall be made to the claimants/respondents without permission of this Court.
List after service is notices to the respondents. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 36 Cr.A.No.1612/2015 04/3/2016 Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Respondent Bhuvnesh is present in person. He is directed to mark his presence today and is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
At this juncture, Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent comes from Neemuch and there is an acquittal from the offence in his favour and hence he may be allowed to mark his presence before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch.
Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the appellant/State.
In view of the above, respondent is directed to mark his presence before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch on 29.3.2016 and he is also directed to remain present before him on all other dates as may be fixed by him.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
37
S.A.No. 118/2016
04/3/2016
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Heard on admission.
Call for the record.
Issue notices to the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
At this juncture, Counsel for the appellant prays for stay vide I.A. No.2029/2016.
Considering the fact that the appellant is a tenant according to the judgment of the Appellate Court and he is still in possession according to the Counsel for the appellant, status-quo regarding the possession of the suit property as it exists today be maintained till the next date of hearing.
38List in the week commencing 4th of April, 2016, as prayed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.612/2015 04/3/2016 Shri Akash Rathi,learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Heard on I.A. No.900/2016, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.2 from the array of the respondents.
For the reasons stated in the application the I.A.is allowed. Counsel for the application is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of the memo of application within a week.
Subject to compliance list in the week 39 commencing 14th of March, 2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 40 Cr.R.No. 1068/2014 04/3/2016 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1050/2016, which is an application under Order 32 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of natural guardian of the petitioner No.2/the minor child.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. However, during the pendency of this revision the wife has died and the maternal aunt wants to be appointed as legal heir of the petitioner No.2/minor child. Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed.
Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the application is not maintainable under the criminal revision.
Considering the above submissions and looking to the welfare of the minor child it would be appropriate the applicant to move an application before the Trial Court under the Guardianship Act and 41 the proceedings are pending before the Family Court. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to move appropriate application before the Family Court.
This revision petition is however, disposed off and the Family Court shall decide the matter regarding the guardianship of the child within a period of six months from today. It is directed that the custody of the child with the maternal aunt be maintained till the decision of the application. The application be moved within a period of 15 days.
However, before parting with the order, Counsel for the respondent prays that the respondent may be allowed to visit the child at least once.
Prayer being natural is granted. The respondent/husband shall be allowed to visit on Sunday preferably on 20.3.2016 in the house of maternal aunt of the child.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present revision petition is disposed off.
C.c. as per Rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 42 Cr.A.No. 76/2010 04/3/2016 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to produce the death certificate of the sole appellant.
Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 43 M.Cr.C.Nos. 1517/2010 and 6425/2010 04/3/2016 Shri Rounak Chouksey, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel submit that the matter is pending before the Apex Court and prays for time.
List after two months, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.4388/2013 04/3/2016 Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned Counsel for 44 the intervenor.
List for final disposal in the month of June, 2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 45 M.Cr.C.No.5344/2015 04/3/2016 Shri Ajay Bagadiya,learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent submits that the DVD in which transcription of the telephone call made by the accused applicant to the complainant is available with her.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that the same has not been supplied to the petitioner.
In view of the above, Counsel for the respondent is directed to keep the Investigating Officer present along with the record on the next occasion before this Court.
List on 11.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 46 M.Cr.C.No.9332/2015 04/3/2016 Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.7957/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this petition.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.
Record of the lower Court is not yet received. List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.239/2016 04/3/2016 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate 47 for the respondent /State.
Heard on I.A. No.1058/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay of 14 days for filing this appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.
The appeal is taken up for admission. Heard on admission. Admit. Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.287/2016 04/3/2016 Shri Siddhardh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate 48 for the respondent /State.
Heard on I.A. No.1302/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days for filing this appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.
The appeal is taken up for admission. Heard on admission. Admit. Call for the record.
List after receipt of the record.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.297/2016 04/3/2016 Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State. She prays for time to file the certified copy of the impugned order.
49Subject to compliance, list after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.CR.C.No.1222/2016 04/3/2016 Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. She submits that the affidavit in support of the petition has been filed.
In view of the above, the petition is taken up for admission.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni R.P.No.17/2016 03/3/2016 Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.21/State.
50By this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the applicants are being aggrieved by this Court order dated 15.12.2015 passed in M.A.No.1029/2015.
Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged that this Court had wrongly drawn conclusion that the applicants have not opposed the interim relief granted to the respondents.
On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no such concession. Besides this Court has issued only a direction to maintain the status-quo regarding possession of the disputed suit property till the final decision of the appeal. Hence, on considering the aforesaid, I find that there is no infirmity in the order passed in the appeal and there is no prima-facie error apparent on the face of the record. The proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC cannot be meant to an abuse of process of Court and the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the error apparent on the face of the record. The Apex Court has warned in several cases that review is a creature of statute. In absence of any statutory provision for review, exercise of power of 51 review under garb of clarification/modification is not permissible. Even if the order impugned is considered all that the Court order was that status-quo regarding the disputed suit property as existed on 15/12/2015 be maintained till the next date of hearing. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the present applicants. However, in the interest of justice, the Trial Court is directed to see that the appeal be decided within stipulated period as already directed earlier.
The review petition No.17/2016, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 52 M.A.No.2489/2014 03/3/2016 Shri Zafar Qureshi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6/claimants.
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents Owner and Driver. Counsel for the respondents/claimants for disbursement of 50% of award amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company. He is directed to move appropriate application in this regard before the concerned trial Court and therefore the trial Court is directed to consider the application, as per provisions of law. The entire exercise be completed within one month from today.
List for final hearing in due course. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 53 M.A.No.1771/2014 03/3/2016 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent No.1, though duly served.
None for the respondent No.2. Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.
Counsel for the appellant undertakes to take appropriate steps regarding the respondent No.2.
Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 54 M.C.C.No.924/2015 03/3/2016 Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.8560/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to this I.A. Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 55 M.Cr.C.No.6420/2015 03/3/2016 None for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent submits that this is the 9th application moved on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail and it is wrongly mentioned as 7th application. The matter has been put up today in default and right from the month of July 2015, none appears to press this application.
In view of the above, the present M.Cr.C. is, dismissed for want of prosecution.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 56 M.Cr.C.No.9898/2015 02/3/2016 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Copy of the petition is handed over to the Counsel for the respondent today only since the Counsel comes from Ujjain and could not serve the copy earlier.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.9261/2011 02/3/2016 Shri L.S. Chandiramani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to 57 produce the case diary.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.5979/2014 02/3/2016 Shri A.S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant prays for time since a compromise is likely to be arrived at between the parties.
List after four weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 58 M.Cr.C.No.9887/2014 02/3/2016 Shri Rahim Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.
The present M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1809/2016 02/3/2016 Shri Pramod Choubey, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. She prays for one last opportunity to procure the medical report since the 59 applicant is suffering from paralysis. Otherwise there are 9 cases recorded against the present applicant.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1933/2016 02/3/2016 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. She is directed to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicant's wife(complainant).
List on 16.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 60 Cri.A.No.670/2010 02/3/2016 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. She submits that the reply to the I.A.is already filed. She is directed to hand over a copy of the reply to Counsel for the petitioner within a week.
List after two weeks, as prayed. Interim relief granted earlier to continue. C.c.as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.911/2012 02/3/2016 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. She submits that the reply to the I.A.is already filed. She is directed to hand over a copy of the reply to Counsel for the petitioner within a 61 week.
List after two weeks, as prayed. Interim relief granted earlier to continue. C.c.as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.269/1999 02/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Shailendra Mukopati, learned Counsel for the respondent. He undertakes to inform the Counsel for the appellant regarding the date of hearing.
List in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 62 S.A.No.1314/2005 02/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Sharma, learned for the respondent.
Shri Ashish Sharma undertakes to inform the Counsel for the appellant regarding the application for vacating the stay.
Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1613/2015 02/3/2016 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri R.C. Singal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/Bank. He is directed to seek instructions. Counsel prays for time to address this Court regarding quashment of the FIR so far it pertains 63 to the respondent/Bank.
List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 64 Cr.A.No.348/2007 02/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. He undertakes to keep the respondent Kanwarlal present before this Court on 9.3.2016.
List on 9.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.863/2009 02/3/2016 None for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
There is no service report regarding non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant.
Let a reminder be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List in the week commencing from 14.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 65 Cr.A.No.320/2014 02/3/2016 Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the lower Court is not yet received. List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.1629/2015 02/3/2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Sharma, learned for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent prays for disbursement of the amount deposited by the accused petitioner. He is directed to move appropriate application in this regard.
List on 14.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 66 M.Cr.C.No.3698/2015 02/3/2016 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for one last opportunity to produce the report from the concerned police station regarding progress of the investigation. He is directed to keep the Investigating Officer present before this Court on the next date of hearing along with record.
List on 16.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 67 Cr.A.No.1179/2010 02/3/2016 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri R.M. Deshpandey, learned Counsel for the original Surety Jaypal.
Heard on I.A.No.9303/2015, which is an application for discharging the original Surety Jaypal.
Counsel for the appellant also agrees that a fresh Surety also appeared before the Trial Court.
In view of the above, the I.A. is allowed and Surety Jaypal is discharged .
List the appeal for final hearing in due course. C.c.as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 68 Cr.A.No.794/2011 02/3/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he was unable to keep the appellant present before this Court today.
In view of the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant for his appearance before this Court on 29.3.2016. Notices be issued to the Surety also as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.
List on 29.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 69 M.Cr.C.No.8514/2012 02/3/2016 Shri Ajay Kanthed, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Brajesh Garg, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the synopsis is ready and prays for permission to file the same during the course of the day.
Prayer is accepted. Counsel for the applicant is directed to hand over a copy of the synopsis to the Counsel for the respondent.
No more argument is required. Reserved for orders.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 70 S.A.No.475/2013 02/3/2016 Shri Zishan Ali, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri S Jain, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (a) to (f).
None for the respondent No.4(g). Counsel for the appellants prays for one last opportunity to pay fresh process regarding the respondent No.4(g).
Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the appellants. Subject to compliance, issue notices to the respondent No.4(g) by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week thereafter. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent No.4(g).
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 71 M.A.No.1035/2013 02/3/2016 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
None for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 though duly served.
Looking to the urgency of the matter, list the appeal along with M.A.No.1033/2013 for final hearing in the month of April, 2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 72 S.A.No.71/2014 02/3/2016 Shri Aditya Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1819/2016, which is an application for brining the legal representatives of the sole appellant on record.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to the I.A. List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 73 Cr.R.No.112/2014 02/3/2016 Shri Rakesh Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Petitioner Vikki @ Vikas has been produced in proper custody by A.S.I. Chandarlal Solanki, Constable No.2926 R. Manish Shukla Central Jail, DRP Line, Indore.
This Court had on 11.2.2016 directed that the petitioner be taken into custody since he had not answered the non-bailable warrant. The petitioner has submitted that the suspension of bail has been granted to him earlier, but he failed appear before this Court on 27.10.2015 and thereafter.
In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner is directed to move appropriate application regarding condonation of absence and fresh application for grant of suspension of jail sentence within two weeks.
The Police officials are directed to be take back the petitioner in proper custody, to undergo the remaining sentence.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
moni Judge
74
M.Cr.C.No.10279/2015
01/3/2016
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Heard on admission and also on I.A. No.8586/2015, which is an application for grant of stay.
Counsel for the respondent/State however, prays for a short time. Time has been granted on several occasions. And hence, looking to the urgency and nature of the case, it is directed that the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua in Criminal Case No.287/2015 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List after two weeks, as prayed. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 75 M.Cr.C.No.10325/2015 01/3/2016 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy.
Heard on admission and also on I.A. No.8609/2015, which is an application for grant of stay.
Issue notices to the respondent No.2 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent No.2.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 76 M.Cr.C.No.11349/2015 01/3/2016 Shri Ashok Garg, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Both the Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter.
List on 8.3.2016, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.14/2016 01/3/2016 Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He prays for time to seeks instructions as to how much amount of maintenance is outstanding and how much amount of arrears the petitioner shall pay to the respondent/wife.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
77(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.87/2016 01/3/2016 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/wife.
All the parties are present today before this Court today.
Both the Counsel are directed to see that all the parties shall remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court for compromise today.
The Principal Registrar is directed to file report within the next date of hearing.
List for the report and disposal of the case on 9.3.2016.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 78 Cr.R.No.121/2016 01/3/2016 Shri I.Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission.
Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks. Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter. Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.
List after service of notices on the respondent.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 79 Cr.R.No.137/2016 01/3/2016 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent prays for a short time to produce the case diary.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni