Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2017
Cr.A.No.1336/2012
28.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to
produce appellant No.1 Shekharda before this court and
wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
He also wants time to file reply on behalf of surety.
Let the matter be listed on 21.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.671/2012
28.04.2017
Shri S.Kochatta, learned counsel for the applicant.
LRs of respondent No.4 Ranchod A,B,C,D all are
served.
LRs of respondent No.7 Liladhar A, B are served.
LRs of respondent No.8 Sitaram A,B,C,D are served.
None present for legal representatives of respondent
No.4 Ranchod A,B,C,D even after service.
None present for legal representatives of respondent
No.7 Liladhar A,B even after service.
None present for legal representatives of respondent
No.8 Sitaram A,B,C,D even after service.
Heard on IA No.1368/2016, which is an application
for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondents
No.4 Ranchod, No.7 Liladhar and No.8 Sitaram.
After due consideration, application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate
the name of legal heirs in place of respondent No.4 Ranchod,
No.7 Liladhar and No.8 Sitaram in the appeal memo.
Necessary amendment be incorporated within 15 days. After
incorporation the name of legal representative of respondent
No.4 Ranchod, No.7 Liladhar and No.8 Sitaram on payment of
process fee within 15 days again issue notice to said legal
representatives, returnable within six weeks for hearing of this
appeal.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12951/2016
28.04.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.11071/2016, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to
file appeal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant earlier wrongly filed Criminal Revision against the
judgment dated 30.07.2016 passed by the 11th Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore, so he could not file this application
for leave to file appeal in time.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
prayer.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
application (IA No.11071/2016) is allowed and the delay in
filing the application is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission after summer
vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1893/2015
28.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on IA No.2656/2015, which is an application
for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
earlier applicant wrongly filed appeal before the Sessions
Court, so he could not file application for leave to file appeal
before this court in time.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
prayer.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
application (IA No.2656/2015) is allowed and the delay in
filing the application for leave to file appeal is hereby
condoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter on admission.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for admission after summer
vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1517/2014
28.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Sijoniya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent Laxman.
Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to
procure the presence of respondent Laxman on 06.07.2017
and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount
may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 06.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.321/2014
28.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant No.7 Sodan Singh is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of applicant No.7 sodan
Singh before this court on 06.07.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 06.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4112/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to file whole documents produced
by the applicant in Cr.R.1365/2016 on 02.01.2017.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.236/2017
28.04.2017
Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3310/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2614/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3473/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.72/2017
28.04.2017
Shri S.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.147/2017
28.04.2017
Shri A.S.Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.497/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.838/2008
28.04.2017
Shri Padmanabh Saxena, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Mahesh present in person, who has been
identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.3522/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant Mahesh on
26.04.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due
to illness appellant could not mark his presence before the
Registry on 26.04.2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in application,
application is allowed and absence of applicant Mahesh on
26.04.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 13.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.286/2015
28.04.2017
Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Sureshsingh is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of appellant Sureshsingh
before this court on 07.07.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 07.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.391/2017
17.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to
produce appellant No.4 Yusuf Khan before this court and
wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 23.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.495/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4502/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4567/2017
28.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1138/2016
28.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
None present for the applicant on 09.02.2017,
07.03.2017 and 12.04.2017.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of applicant before this
court on 19.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 19.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1378/2016
28.04.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
deposit Rs.10,000/- before the trial court towards expenses to
be incurred by the respondent in defending herself in this
petition positively.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3081/2017
28.04.2017
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she
has cured all the defects as pointed out by the office.
Office to verify.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11142/2016
28.04.2017
None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties matter is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.183/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Raunak Chouksey, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Respondent No.2 Rinki Gandhi is not present.
On payment of fresh process fee with correct address
issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to
secure the presence of respondent No.2 Rinki Gandhi before
this court, returnable within six weeks.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.A.No.185/17,
Cr.A.No.186/17 and Cr.A.No.187/17 after six weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.12383/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Aviral Khare, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
28.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8654/2016
24.04.2017
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri S.K.Mehra, learned counsel for the non-
applicant.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the
Special Judge, (Electricity Act), Indore in Criminal Case
No.57/2005; whereby learned judge partly allowed the
applicant's application filed under Section 65-C of the Indian
Evidence Act and only allowed to file copy of spot memo in
evidence as secondary evidence and rejected the prayer
regarding remaining documents.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the
disposal of this petition are that applicant filed a complaint
against the non-applicant for the offence under Sections 135,
136, 137, 138, 139, 149 and 150 of Indian Electricity Act and
Section 420 of IPC. On that complaint learned trial court
registered Criminal Case No.57/2005 against non-applicant and
tried the case. During trial of the case at the stage of applicant's
evidence applicant filed an application under Section 65-C of
the Evidence Act averring that he filed complaint against the
non-applicant regarding electricity theft. The applicant's
employees checked non applicant's premises on 07.05.2005
and found electricity theft so they prepared spot memo ,interim
assessment order, Final assessment bill, receipt and description
of Bill which were annexed in office file but that file was
missing so copy of that document is taken on record as
secondary evidence in place of original document.
[3] Non-applicant in his reply opposed the prayer.
[4] Learned Trial Court by order dated 03.02.2016
partly allowed the application and only permitted the applicant
to file copy of spot memo as secondary evidence and rejected
the prayer regarding other documents observing that applicant
had not mentioned that the photocopy was made from the
original and it was compared with original. Also name of
person who obtained the photocopy by mechanical process had
not been mentioned. He could not even prove existence of
original. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this
petition.
[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
document brought on record along with the application filed
under Section 65-C of the Indian Evidence Act had a material
bearing on the facts of the present case and thus it was essential
in the interest of justice to accept the same and allow the
application. The fact narrated in the complaint and evidence
brought on record would fairly demonstrate the clever and
ingenious mode and method by which the electricity theft was
made and thus, in totality of circumstances. The learned court
below ought to have accepted the application. Learned trial
court committed mistake in rejecting his prayer.
[6] Learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the
prayer and submitted that learned trial court rightly right
rejected applicant's prayer.
[7] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the parties. It appears from the record
that non-applicant is facing trial under Indian Electricity Act,
2003 on the complaint of applicant before the Special Judge
(Electricity Act), Indore in Criminal Case No.57/2005.
Applicant by way of application wants to produce copy of spot
memo and interim assessment order, assessment of Bill, and
description of Bill as secondary evidence.
[8] It appears from the record that applicant wants to
produce photocopy of interim assessment order, assessment of
Bill, and description of Bill as secondary evidence. Learned
trial court on the basis of this court's judgment passed in
Aneeta Rajpoot V/s. Saraswati Gupta reported in I.L.R.
(2013) MP 43 rejected his prayer. This court in that judgement
clearly held that for taking photo copy of any document on
record as secondary evidence besides the satisfaction of section
65(a) it is also required that the photocopy was compared with the
original in terms of section 63 (3) of evidence act.
Since there is no averment in the application filled by
the applicant under section 65c of evidence act that photocopy
was compared with the original and it is an accurate photocopy of
the original and applicant also did not file any affidavit of person
who obtained the said photocopy along with application.
So learned trial court did not commit any mistake
in rejecting applicant's prayer for taking photocopies of some
documents on record as secondary evidence without fulfilling
the requirement of the Section 65 and 63 of the Evidence Act.
So, this petition is disposed of with the direction that applicant
is free to file another application after fulfilling the aforesaid
requirement for taking photocopy as secondary evidence. In
that event trial court shall dispose that application without
considering his earlier application.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4459/2017
27.04.2017
Shri Vishal Borade, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3353/2017, which is an application
for stay of proceedings of Criminal Case No.15500/2013
pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore.
Application is allowed.
Proceedings of Criminal Case No.15500/2013 shall
remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to call for the case diary and report of Investigation
Officer.
Let the matter be listed for admission after two
weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.24/2017
27.04.2017
Shri Anil Naidu, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.06.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.567/2015
27.04.2017
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
the matter and also wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 09.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.153/2016
27.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Shri R.K.Vishwakarma, learned counsel appears on
behalf of Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
the reply of IA No.7437/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 23.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1282/2009
27.04.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Dilip @ Jhulelal present in person, who
has been identified by his counsel.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of
this court on 24.07.2017 and on further dates as may be fixed
in this behalf by the Registry.
Let the matter be listed on 24.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.628/2016
27.04.2017
None appears for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
According to report dated 11.04.2017 of
Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, appellant has undergone
whole jail sentence awarded by the trial court in Special
S.T.No.92/2015, so there is no need to issue non-bailable
warrant to secure his presence in this appeal. Hence, order of
arrest warrant for securing his presence dated 03.03.2017 be
recalled.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.1080/2016
26.04.2017
Shri S.K.Soni, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None for the respondent.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the 14th Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr.A.No.146/2016; filed
against the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2016
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in
Criminal Case No.42510/2014 whereby Judicial
Magistrate First Class found appellant guilty for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment
and also directed him to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the non-applicant/complainant under
Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and whereby learned ASJ
partly allowed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and
also affirmed the direction of compensation. But set aside
the jail sentence of applicant.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that non-applicant
filed a criminal complaint against the applicant before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act averring
that non applicant/complainant gave a loan of Rs.81,300/-
to the applicant and for the purpose of payment of said
loan applicant gave cheque No.000002 dated 30.08.2014
drawn on Bank of Baroda, Branch M.G. Road, Indore.
The applicant at the time of issuing the said cheque
promised the complainant that it would be duly paid on
its presentation.
The complainant further averred that on
11.10.2014 on presentation of the said cheque in the
bank, it was dishonoured. After that complainant sent
legal notice demanding the payment of the said amount.
Even after service of that notice on 01.11.2014 applicant
did not pay the amount. So complaint requested that
action be taken against him. On that learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class took cognizance against the
applicant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and registered the complaint as a
Criminal Case No.42510/2014 under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and tried the matter.
Although applicant took the defence that he did not give
the said cheque to the non-applicant for discharging any
legally enforceable debt or any liability, but after trial
learned trial court held appellant guilty for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment and pay Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation to
the non-applicant. Being aggrieved from that judgement
applicant filled Cr.A.No.146/2016 before the Sessions
Court, which was disposed of by the 14th Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore whereby he affirmed the
conviction of applicant but set aside the jail sentence and
affirmed the order of compensation. Being aggrieved
from that judgment appellant filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that from the evidence it is clear that applicant did not
give the said cheque to non-applicant for discharging any
legally enforceable debt or any liability. Learned trial
court as well as appellate court without appreciating the
facts wrongly found the appellant guilty for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
[4] By the present Revision Petition, the petitioner
has assailed the judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the
14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on the ground that
findings of court below were against the weight of
evidence. There was nothing on record to show that
appellant gave the said cheque to the non-applicant for
discharge of any loan or liability. The grounds raised by
the petitioner in the present petition show that the
petitioner has assailed the order of learned Sessions Judge
on merits.
[5] Section 393 of Cr.P.C. specifically provides
that the judgment and order passed by the appellate court
in an appeal shall be final except in cases provided under
Sections 377, 378 and 384 (4) or Chapter XXX. The case
of the petitioner does not fall under any these three cases.
Thus, the judgment of appellate court has attained finality
and the High Court could interfere under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. only if there was an issue of correctness, legality
or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or
passed by the Sessions Court or any irregularity of the
proceedings of the Sessions Court. The High Court in its
power under Section 397 cannot act as a court of second
appeal and cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence to
substitute its own opinion against the opinion of the
appellate court. The scope of revision against the
concurrent finding of fact is very limited and ordinarily
the concurrent finding of fact cannot be challenged unless
and until there is gross misreading of evidence or there is
manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice. The
revisional jurisdiction does not confer power on the
revisional court to reappreciate the evidence on record.
The Revisional Court can examine the record only to
satisfy itself that the court below had conducted the
proceedings in an appropriate manner and had taken into
account entire evidence before passing the judgment. The
judgment is not to be resorted to as a second appeal.
[6] During arguments, counsel for the petitioner
had only been agitating that the conclusion arrived at by
the trial court as well as by the appellate court was not
correct conclusion and he wanted this court to
reappreciate the entire evidence. I consider that this court
in view of Section 393 of Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the
entire evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the
one arrived at by the appellate court, therefore, this court
finds no force in this revision, even otherwise from the
statement of complainant/non-applicant, it is clearly
proved that applicant gave the said cheque to the non-
applicant against the loan of Rs.81,300/- taken by her
from non-applicant. So, the revision has no force and
petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
Cr.R.No.44/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion
stage with the consent of both the parties on 28.06.2017, as
prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12845/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce the case diary.
Prayer is allowed.
Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to
produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2080/2016
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
file the copy of FIR on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.141/2017
26.04.2017
Shri B.L.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.58/2017
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1809/2015
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2715/2015
26.04.2017
Shri Ravi Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.915/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2025/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Ankur Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6997/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Shri Rahul Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8867/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Ms. Swati Arora Khan, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9047/2016
26.04.2017
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9823/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 23.06.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.264/2017
26.04.2017
Shri R.C.Nihore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11140/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11297/2016
26.04.2017
Shri P.L.Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12094/2016
26.04.2017
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri T.Bhedasgaonkar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13138/2016
26.04.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.192/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Manisha Parsai, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.204/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
record of M.Cr.C.No.2929/2011 after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.233/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Vinod Bhavsar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Dakhniya is also present in person.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 27.07.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.266/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Rajendra Sanghvi, learned counsel with
Shri Ashish Gupta and Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that they want to withdraw this petition with liberty to
file fresh petition against the order of framing charge
against the applicants.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed as
withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1223/2016
26.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that
there is possibility of settlement through mediation. So,
office is directed to appoint a Mediator and place the matter
before the Mediator on 15.05.2017.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the
Mediator on 15.05.2017. Parties are also directed to co-
operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.
Mediator is directed to submit the report after
mediation.
Let the matter be listed on 19.05.2017 along with
the Mediator's report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1597/2016
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of petition to the respondent.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.295/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.392/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.418/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.426/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.439/2017
26.04.2017
Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.457/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.680/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.746/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on admission.
Admitted.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1096/2017
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
summer vacation, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1876/2017
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1957/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the status report of investigation in Crime
No.63/17 registered at P.S. Neelganga, Crime No.60/17
registered at P.S. Neelganga, Crime No.59/17 registered at
P.S. Neelganga and Crime No.80/17 registered at P.S.
Neelganga before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2333/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
vehicle is already in their interim custody, so he does not
want to press this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2597/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce case diary of Crime No.144/2012 registered at
P.S. Bajna, District Ratlam.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2845/2017
26.04.2017
Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on IA No.2914/2017, which is an application
for adding prosecutrix as respondent No.2.
After due consideration, application (IA No.2914/17)
is allowed. Applicant is directed to incorporate the
amendment in his petition. After incorporation of amendment
on payment of process fee within 15 days, issue notice to the
respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3518/2017
26.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.259/2007
26.04.2017
Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondents No.1 and No.2,
even after service of notice by publication in the newspaper.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.375/2009
26.04.2017
Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of non-bailable warrant issued against
respondent Jenuddin not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4391/2017
25.04.2017
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.2/State.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of private
complaint and proceedings of criminal case No.628/2016
pending before the J.M.F.C., Javad, District Neemuch against
the applicant for the offence under Section 498A and 448 of
the IPC.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the
disposal of this petition are that non-applicant No.1 filed a
private complaint before the J.M.F.C., Javad, District
Neemuch averring that she is legally wedded wife of
applicant No.1 Ravi and applicants No.2, 3, 4 & 5 are father-
in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
non-applicant respectively. Her marriage was solemnized
with applicant No.1 Ravi on 21.04.2015. After marriage she
lived with applicant and his family members at Village Gujri
Manpur in her matrimonial house but behaviour of applicants
No.1 to 3 was not good with her. They demanded dowry and
harassed her and subjected her to cruelty due to which she left
her matrimonial house 5 to 6 months before filing of the
complaint i.e. 16.04.2016. On 02.04.2016, applicants No.1 to
3 came to her house at Nayagaon and tried to forcibly take
her along and also threatened her. On that complaint learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Javad, District Neemuch
recorded statement of complainant/non-applicant Archna
under Section 200 and her witness Mangilal, Rakesh and
Gendubai under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and by order dated
01.06.2016 took cognizance against applicants No.1 to 5
under Sections 498A and 448 of IPC and registered a private
complaint as Criminal Case No.628/2016 and issued notice to
the applicants for appearance. Being aggrieved from that
order applicants filed this petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
applicants never demanded any dowry from the non-applicant
No.1 and never harassed her for dowry. Non-applicant No.1
filed false complaint against applicants for harassing her.
Earlier also non-applicant No.1 lodged police report against
applicants but police did not take any action on that report
because report was false. So applicant filed this false
complaint before the trial court which is an abuse of process
of court, hence complaint be quashed.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsels.
[6] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported in
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-
"The power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and
with circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to
act according to its whim or caprice. The court will
not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
The following categories of cases can be
stated by way of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised :
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Sections 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
Which shows that complaint can only be quashed
when no offence is made out from the averment of the
complaint, while in the complaint prima facie offence under
Section 498-A is clearly made out.
[7] It appears from the record that non-applicant
No.1 clearly averred in her complaint that applicant harassed
her for dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Non-applicant
also gave statement in support of her complaint before the
court and statements of Mangilal (PW-2), Rakesh (PW-3) and
Gendubai (PW-4) also corroborate with the statement of non-
applicant. Whether the allegation made by the non-applicant
No.1 in the complaint is true or not cannot be ascertained at
this stage as it requires evidence.
[8] Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted
that they filed application before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra,
Dhar but non-applicant No.1 did not appear in the Parivar
Paramarsh Kendra, Dhar. He also filed documents in this
regard, but only on the ground that non-applicant did not
appear before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Dhar, it cannot
be said at this stage that non-applicant No.1 filed false
complaint to harass applicants.
[9] Learned counsel for the applicant also placed
reliance on the judgment of this court in Premsingh &
others V/s. Mithlesh Kunwar & others. But the facts of that
case do not match with the instant case. In that case non-
applicant/wife hardly resided with applicants for five days
and then left her matrimonial home and did not return but in
the instant case non-applicant No.1 lived with applicant No.1
Ravi in the matrimonial home for sometime so the judgement
does not help the applicants much . At this stage only on the
basis of documents filed by the applicants along with this
application it cannot be assumed that non-applicant No.1 filed
the complaint just to harass the applicants based on false
allegation. Prima facie offence under Section 498-A is clearly
made out from the complaint and statement of complaint and
non-applicant No.1 and her witnesses and the veracity of her
statement cannot be ascertained at this stage as it requires
evidence. Therefore, complaint cannot be quashed, so petition
is dismissed. Applicants are free to raise all objections before
the competent court at the appropriate stage.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.426/2005
25.04.2017
Shri D.K.Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.2889/2012, which is an application
filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for bringing legal
representatives of respondent No.8 Smt. Savitri Devi and IA
No.2890/2012, which is an application filed under Order 22
Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside of abatement and IA
No.5289/2005, which is an application filed under Section
151 of CPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
respondent No.8 Savitri Devi died on 25.07.2007, but
respondent No.1 informed him regarding her death on
10.10.2011, therefore, he could not file application for
bringing legal representatives of respondent No.8 on record
within time.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has objected
the prayer and submitted that applicant has not filed
application within time.
None present for the legal representative of
respondent No.8 even after service of notice by publication.
On due consideration, applications (IA
No.2889/2012, IA No.2890/2012 and IA No.5289/2005) are
allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to
incorporate the name of legal heir in place of respondent
No.8 Savitri Devi in the appeal memo. Necessary
amendment be incorporated within 15 days. After
incorporation the name of legal representative of
respondent No.8 on payment of process fee within one
month again issue notice to legal representative of
respondent No.8 for hearing of this appeal.
Let the matter be listed after service of notice.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4381/2017
25.04.2017
Shri Raghvendra Singh Bais, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Applicant Ritu Agrawal is also present in person.
Shri Amit Pal, learned counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 4.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.5/State.
Applicant Ritu Agrawal submitted that she entered
into compromise with non-applicants.
Both parties are directed to appear before the
Principal Registrar of this Bench on 01.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed before the Court along with
M.Cr.C.No.6034/2016 on 02.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.304/2017
25.04.2017
Shri Jerry Lopez, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of fresh
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.1003/2016
25.04.2017
Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report and connected appeal FA No.998/2016 after
summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.652/2008
25.04.2017
None present for the appellant, even after second
round.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.237/2016
25.04.2017
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Service report of bailable warrant of applicant Gaba
@ Gajraj is not received as yet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant Gaba @ Gajraj is in jail in another case.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.236/2016
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2376/2017
25.04.2017
Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 read
with Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transferring the Criminal
Case No.1135/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sardarpur, District Dhar to Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore.
Both parties are resident of Indore, so with the
consent of counsel for both the parties without commenting
on merit, petition is allowed and Criminal Case
No.1135/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sardarpur, District Dhar is transferred to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Indore with a direction that learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate either hear the case himself or transfer to
the court of any competent Judicial Magistrate First Class to
hear and dispose of the case as early as possible preferably
within six weeks.
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sardarpur,
District Dhar is directed to send the record of Criminal Case
No.1135/2016 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore within
15 days.
Parties are also directed to appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Indore on 15.05.2017.
Copy of this order be sent to the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sardarpur, District Dhar and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Indore.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
Cr.R.No.636/2003
25.04.2017
Shri Himanshuj Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2.
Office is directed to call for the report from the
District Jail, Rajgarh that whether the applicant Ramswaroop
has undergone whole sentence awarded by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh
(Biaora) in Criminal Case No.269/1997 by order dated
09.04.2002?
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.189/2016
25.04.2017
Shri Sumit Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
As per office report, notice issued to respondent
No.3 received unserved.
Issue notice to the respondent No.3 on payment of
fresh process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.532/2000
25.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to verify the factum of death of appellant Omprakash.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed along with the report on
03.07.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1184/2001
25.04.2017
None appears for the appellant.
Service report of bailable warrant of appellant
Kishore not received as yet.
Let the matter be listed along with the service report
after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.161/2004
25.04.2017
Shri N.K.Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the legal heirs
of respondent Madanlal.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.4631/16 to the counsel for the legal
heirs of respondent Madanlal during the course of the day.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.459/2006
25.04.2017
Shri Prakash Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State wants time
to file reply of IA No.171/17, IA No.168/17 & IA No.169/17.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.347/2007
25.04.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri N.K.Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.432/2017, which is an application
filed under Section 151 of CPC.
On due consideration IA No.432/2017 is allowed.
Office is directed to give original document of Ex.P/1
to the respondent No.1 on furnishing bond and the certified
copy of the document filed by the respondent No.1 be taken
on record.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.547/2006
25.04.2017
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.8464/2016, which is an application
under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for taking documents
on record.
This application will be decided at the time of final
hearing.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.25/2009
25.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 17.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1244/2013
25.04.2017
Shri J.B.Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the legal
heirs of respondents No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents No.5 to 7.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the
learned counsel for the appellants has not supplied the copy
of petition memo and documents.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to
supply the copy of petition memo and documents to the
counsel for the respondents.
Let the matter be listed for admission after summer
vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3685/2016
24.04.2017
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the non-applicant even after
service of notice.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the 9th
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.971/2014;
whereby he affirmed the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case
No.6773/2013; whereby he rejected applicant's prayer to
discharge Criminal Case No.6773/2013.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the
disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private
complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act before the Trial Court averring that he was
having good relation with the petition and, therefore, he has
advanced a loan of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. To refund the
said amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No.222409
dated 18.01.2013 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- drawn on
Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Indore to the respondent.
When the said cheque was sent for collection, the said cheque
was dishonoured with a note that "account closed". After that
he sent notice to the applicant for payment of said amount, but
applicant not paid the said amount, so action be taken against
him. On that complaint learned trial court took cognizance
against applicant for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and registered Criminal Case
No.6773/2013. Being aggrieved from that cognizance order
applicant filed an application under Section 204 of Cr.P.C.
before the trial court averring that from bare perusal of the said
cheque it is clear that the said cheque was given on behalf of
partnership firm namely Western Carring Corporation. While
respondent neither sent notice to the said partnership firm nor
implead the said firm as a party in the complaint. In these
circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant against
only applicant is not maintainable, but learned trial court
rejected the applicant's prayer observing that it is not clear that
the said cheque was given by whom and in which liability,
hence at this stage the petition is not maintainable and rejected
the application against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.971/2014,
which was disposed of by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore
by order dated 02.12.2015 and by that order 9th Additional
Sessions Judge affirmed the lower court's order and rejected
applicant's Revision observing that without impleading
partnership firm as an accused complaint is not maintainable
because there is applicant's sign on the said cheque. Applicant
signed on the said cheque in what capacity is a matter of
evidence. This fact will be decided after recording of evidence.
Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed
Criminal Revision.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
from bare perusal of the said cheque it is clear that the said
cheque was given on behalf of partnership firm namely Western
Carring Corporation. Respondent has not issued any legal
notice to the said partnership firm and not impleaded as an
accused in the complaint. In these circumstances, the complaint
filed by the non-applicant only against applicant is not
maintainable.
Learned trial court committed mistake in taking
cognizance against the applicant overlooking these facts and
learned revisional court also committed mistake in rejecting his
Criminal Revision.
This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. It
appears from the record that non-applicant filed private
complaint averring that applicant took Rs.50,000/- from him.
When he demanded that money from the applicant he gave the
said cheque No.222409 amounting to Rs.50,000/- of Centurion
Bank of Punjab Limited, Indore on 18.01.2013, but said cheque
was dishonoured. Although in the said cheque it is mentioned
that said cheque was given on behalf of Western Carring
Corporation, but it is not a case of the applicant that he gave
money to any partnership firm. He stated that he gave money to
applicant only on the ground that applicant gave cheque of
partnership firm. It is not necessary for complainant to implead
partnership firm as an accused in the complaint.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance
on the Apex Court's judgment passed in Aneeta Hada V/s.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 661, in which Apex Court held that,
"Criminal liability on account of
dishonour of cheque primarily falls on
drawer company and extends to its officers
only when conditions incorporated in
Section 141 stand satisfied - Explaining
import of words "as well as the company"
occurring in Section 141, held, for
maintaining prosecution under Section
141, arraigning of company as accused is
imperative."
He also placed reliance on the Apex Court's
judgment passed in Anil Gupta V/s. Star India Private
Limited and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 373, in which
Apex Court held that,
"From Section 138 of the Act it is
clear that only the drawer of the cheque
falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the
Act whether human being or a body
corporate or even a firm. The guilt for
offence under Section 138 will be deemed
to be upon other persons connected with
the Company in view of Section 141 of the
Act."
He also placed reliance in the judgment passed by
this Court in Kamla Rusiya V/s. State of M.P. And another
reported in 2010 (I) MPWN 93, in which this court held that,
"Section 138 of the Act covers only
those cases wherein the cheque drawn by a
person on an account maintained by him
with a banker for payment of any amount
of money to another person from out of
that account for the discharge, in whole or
in part, of any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid, either because
of the amount of money standing to the
credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from that
account by an agreement made with that
bank."
Cheque was issued on behalf of the firm. The only
fact that respondent had issued the cheque by itself, was not
sufficient to attract penal liability for the offence under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as he was able to establish
that his authority drawer had seized to continue till the date it
was presented for encashment. In other words the applicant had
failed to prove that the respondent had played some role at the
time when the cheque was dishonoured.
..............................................
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10798/2016
24.04.2017
Shri A.K.Nalvaya, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
status report of Criminal Case No.32110/2006 pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore before the next
date of hearing.
Office is also directed to call for the status report of
Criminal Case No.6771/2006 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.700/2009
24.04.2017
Shri Tausif Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there is no instructions from the appellant Sanjay @ Sanju.
There is another counsel Shri K.C.Gupta for the appellant in
the present case.
Bailable warrant of appellant Sanjay @ Sanju is not
received as yet.
Let the matter be listed along with service report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.859/2004
24.04.2017
None present for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
According to the report of S.H.O., P.S. Ratangarh,
District Neemuch dt.03.04.2017, appellant No.2 Nathulal
Charan died on 13.01.2017, so appeal is abated with regard to
appellant No.2 Nathulal.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to delete
the name of appellant No.2 Nathulal from the appeal memo.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.320/2004
24.04.2017
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.2037/17, which is an application
filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC.
Application (IA No.2037/17) is partly allowed and
the operation and execution of impugned judgment is stayed
only till the next date of hearing on the cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Office is directed to list the matter for final hearing in
the next week.
Appellant is directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to
the respondent.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1236/2016
24.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the report from the
District Jail, Badwani that whether the applicant has
undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC. No.219/2017
24.04.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.75/2017
24.04.2017
Ms. Kirti Ketke, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.79/2016
24.04.2017
None present for the applicants, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicants
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday. It is made clear that no further adjournment
shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.836/2016
24.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1532/2016
24.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter and prays for any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1103/2016
24.04.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.4831/16, IA No.1836/17, IA
No.2502/17 and IA No.2501/17 to the counsel for the
respondents during the course of the day.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.764/2014
24.04.2017
Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the respondents 4,
5,7 & 8.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1595/2016
24.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1864/2016
24.04.2017
Shri A.B.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.
As per office report, respondents No.1 and 2 are
served. Even after service of notice, none present for the
respondents No.1 & 2.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing, so
let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1662/2016
24.04.2017
Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Abhay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3.
None present for the respondents No.1 and 2, even
after service of notice.
Let the matter be listed for admission in the next
week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8261/2016
24.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.2010/2016
24.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks four
weeks' time to pay deficit court fees.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.156/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Bheemsen Soni, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks four weeks'
time to pay deficit court fees.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.312/2017
24.04.2017
Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2287/2017
24.04.2017
Shri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter along with service
report. Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with
the service report and record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.478/2017
24.04.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier. Meanwhile
proceedings of Criminal Case No.277/2014 shall remain
stayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.416/2017
24.04.2017
Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.682/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1214/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1902/2017
24.04.2017
Shri B.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2532/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2610/2017
24.04.2017
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier. Meanwhile
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1937/2016 pending
before the J.M.F.C., Biaora, District Rajgarh shall remain
stayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2751/2017
24.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Ms. Darshan Arora, learned counsel for the
complainant.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2824/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2908/2017
24.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4137/2017
24.04.2017
Ms. Jyoti Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4302/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4327/2017
24.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3572/2017
24.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
some documents in support of his petition and wants time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6805/2012
24.04.2017
Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondents No.2 & 3.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 & 3, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2699/2013
24.04.2017
Petitioner Ravi Kumar Potdar is present in person.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.5 to 8 and 10.
Petitioner Ravi Kumar Potdar wants time to argue the
matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.06.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2874/2014
24.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.45/2015
24.04.2017
Ms. Anita Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1085/2015
24.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion
stage with the consent of both the parties on 19.05.2017, as
prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.775/2008
24.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Non-bailable warrant of appellant No.3 Shadab
Khan is received unserved.
Office is directed to issue again non-bailable
warrant to procure the presence of appellant No.3 Shadab
Khan before this court on 10.07.2017. Also issue notice to
his surety.
Let the matter be listed along with the report on
10.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2570/2015
24.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 29.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCRC NO.5654/2015
21.04.2017:
Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This petition has been filed under section 482
Cr.P.C against the order dated 05.03.2015 passed by this
Court in M.Cr.C.No.7239/10 whereby the petition filed
by the petitioner under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C seeking
leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
17.09.2010 passed by JMFC, Indore in Crimial Case
No.3045/2010 has been rejected.
Brief facts of the case which are relevant for
disposal of this petition are that petitioner filed a private
complaint before JMFC, Indore against the respondent for
the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. On that complaint criminal
case No.3045/2010 was registered by the trial court
charges framed under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against the respondent. However, after
trial vide judgment dated 17.09.2010 the trial Court
acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charge. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred leave
to appeal under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C before this Court
which was registered as MCRC No.7239/10 and disposed
of by this court by order dated 05.03.2015 after hearing
learned counsel of both the party on merits.
Learned counsel of the applicant submitted that
Before hearing of the said case, petitioner moved an
application dated 04.03.2015 seeking permission to
change his existing counsel but unfortunately that
application could not be placed on record and on
05.03..2015 i.e. the next day the impugned order was
passed by this Court after hearing the existing counsel
Shri A.K.Nalwaya and without considering the
application seeking change of counsel, hence the
petitioner prayed for recall of the order dated 5.3.2015
and fresh hearing of the matter.
On the other hand learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed
by this Court after hearing counsel for both the
parties,there was no application for change of counsel on
record till the final disposal of M.Cr.C.No.7239/2010
hence this Court has no jurisdiction to recall the
impugned order.Even otherwise impugned order was
passed by this court on merits. According to section 363
of Cr.PC this court has no power to review its earlier
order and prayed for rejection of the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that the order dated
05.03.2015 was passed by this Court after hearing both
the counsel for the parties on merits and there was no
application for change of counsel on record at that
juncture.So It cannot be said that at the time of argument
the counsel for the petitioner Shri A.K.Nalwaya had no
instructions from the petitioner to argue the matter. Even
otherwise this court passed impugned order on merits and
this Court has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order
As held by the Apex Court in the case of Moti Lal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1544.Hence
the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
hk/
Civil Revision No.296/2015
11.04.2017
Shri Pankaj Kumar Sohani, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the
non-applicants No.1 to 8.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non applicant No.9/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
24.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Civil Revision No.193/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Sr. Advocate with
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the non-
applicants No.1 to 8.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non applicant No.9/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
24.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4120/2017
22.04.2017
Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant
Vinod Singhal.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
Prosecutrix also appeared in person before the
court and filed an affidavit that she does not want any
action against applicant.
Heard.
Case diary perused.
This is a second bail application filed under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. His
earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 20.12.2016.
The applicant apprehended his arrest in
connection with Crime No.373/2016 registered at P.S.
Y.D. Nagar, Mandsaur for the offence under Sections
376, 376(2)(N), 506 & 90 of IPC
As per prosecution case, applicant made
sexual relation with prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage
and duped her from the year 2007 to 2016 and sexually
exploited her. Prosecutrix is having two daughters from
the applicant but now applicant is denying to marry
her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that prosecutrix wrongly filed report against the applicant.
Prosecutrix is a consenting party. Nothing is required to
be seized from the possession of the applicant. Applicant
is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. The
applicant does not have any criminal past except the
present case. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be
diminished. Under these circumstances, applicant prays
for bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed the application.
On due consideration and contentions raised
by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts
and circumstances of the case, this court is of the
considered view that it is a fit case to allow the applicant's
anticipatory bail, therefore, without expressing any view
on the merits of the case this application is allowed. It is
directed that in the event of arrest in Crime No.373/2016
registered at P.S. Y.D.Nagar, Mandsaur, present applicant
Vinod Singhal S/o Shivraj Singhal shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Authority (Investigating Officer).
This order will remain operative subject to
compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
{1} The applicant will comply with all the
terms and conditions of the bond executed by
him.
{2} The applicant will co-operate in the
investigation/trial, as the case may be;
{3} The applicant will not indulge himself
in extending inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing
such facts to the court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
{4} The applicant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused;
{5} The applicant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial; and
{6} The applicant will not leave India
without previous permission of the trial court/
Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned
Station House Officer for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.865/2006
22.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.
Service report of bailable warrant issued against
respondent No.3 Rajesh Mishra is received unserved with
the report that respondent No.3 Rajesh Mishra is expired on
20th September, 2016.
Because respondent No.3 Rajesh Mishra died on
20.09.2016, so appeal has become infructuous against
respondent No.3 Rajesh Mishra.
Learned counsel for the appellant/State is directed to
delete the name of respondent No.3 Rajesh Mishra from the
appeal memo.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.921/2014
22.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent Aabid.
Respondent Aabid is present in person, who has been
identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1046/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of respondent Aabid and IA
No.1047/2017, which is an application for recalling of
bailable warrant issued against respondent by order dated
22.12.2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
due to accident, respondent Aabid could not appear and
mark his presence before the Registry on 18.11.2016 and on
further dates. His absence is bona fide, therefore, it be
condoned and order of bailable warrant dated 22.12.2016 be
recalled..
Looking to the reasons assigned in applications (IA
No.1046/17 & IA No.1047/17), applications are allowed and
absence of respondent Aabid on 18.11.2016, 19.12.2016 and
22.12.2016 is hereby condoned and order dated 22.12.2016
for issuing bailable warrant is recalled.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 24.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.171/2017
22.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Service report of respondent No.2 Sabir Hussain is
not received as yet.
Office is directed to list the matter along with service
report after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9442/2016
22.04.2017
Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Advocate with
Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1617/2016
22.04.2017
Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1460/2010
22.04.2017
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant of appellant Mohammad
Salim is received unserved.
Office is directed to issue again non-bailable
warrant to procure the presence of appellant Mohammad
Salim before this court on 10.07.2017. Notice issued to his
surety not duly served, so again issue notice to his surety.
Let the matter be listed along with the report on
10.07.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10677/2015
22.04.2017
Shri Rajendra Namdev, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
summer vacation, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA No.401/2016
22.04.2017
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri O.P.Arya, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.
Heard on IA No.2693/2016, an application for stay.
Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the
next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded
amount within one month.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3127/2016
22.04.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to pay process fee.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue
notice to the respondent, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5526/2016
22.04.2017
Shri A.Chitle, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Amit
Pardeshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.M.Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
on IA No.5408/2016.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6917/2016
22.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicants/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants/State submitted
that they have already paid process fee, so office is directed
to issue notice to the respondent, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10083/2016
22.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
As per office report, notice issued to the respondents
received unserved.
On payment of fresh process fee within 15 days,
issue notice to the respondents, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11628/2016
22.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.63/2017
22.04.2017
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.
None present for the respondents, even after service
of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.274/2017
22.04.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter along with service
report on 19.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1592/2017
22.04.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to
cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks along with
the record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2886/2017
22.04.2017
Shri Asif Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
during the course of the day he will cure the defects as
pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.295/2016
21.04.2017
None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10078/2015
21.04.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 09.05.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1231/1999
21.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of non-bailable warrant of appellant
Rajesh is not received as yet.
Let the matter be listed along with service report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1293/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant Umakant present in person, who has been
identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.3269/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Umakant on
16.01.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant was in jail in another case, so he could not mark his
presence before the Registry on the given date.
Looking to the reasons assigned in application,
application is allowed and absence of applicant Umakant on
16.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 03.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10126/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion
stage with the consent of both the parties on 09.05.2017, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7103/2016
21.04.2017
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to file the status report of confiscation proceeding on the next
date of hearing positively.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.1067/2016
21.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.51/2017
21.04.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Office is directed to list the matter along with
service report after two weeks and also call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4074/2017
21.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for
temporary suspension of sentence on the ground of critical
position of applicant's pregnant wife.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to verify the factum.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1552/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State
Issue notice to the respondents No.2 & 3 on
payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4
weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1622/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3193/2016
21.04.2017
Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9369/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Bhuriya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12189/2016
21.04.2017
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to place
the whole copy of charge-sheet positively on the next date of
hearing.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12824/2016
21.04.2017
Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.72/2017
21.04.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.242/2017
21.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent and wants time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.335/2017
21.04.2017
Shri S.K.Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter and prays for any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.358/2017
21.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 27.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1832/2017
21.04.2017
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2487/2017
21.04.2017
Shri A.H.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3460/2017
21.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8398/2011
21.04.2017
Shri Naveen Nalvaya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri B.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 08.05.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.908/2014
21.04.2017
Applicant - Sangeeta present in person.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2.
Applicant Sangeeta wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.06.2017, as prayed.
Office is also directed to call the status report of Criminal
Case No.1265/2012 pending before the 3rd A.S.J., Indore.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10241/2014
21.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
copy of charge framed by the lower court against the
applicant and also wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
S.A. No.64/2000
20.04.2017
Shri R.C.Chhajed, learned counsel for the
appellant.
None present for the respondent No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant pleads no
instructions. Office is directed to issue SPC for securing the
presence of appellant.
Let the matter be listed along with the service
report on 27.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.209/2015
20.04.2017
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents No.1 & 2/State.
Shri Prakash Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission
to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all objections
which are raised in this petition before the trial court at the
appropriate stage.
Prayer is allowed.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.24/2017
20.04.2017
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri
Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 27.04.2017. Proceedings
of Civil Suit No.156-A/2016 will remain stayed till the next
date of hearing.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1403/2015
20.04.2017
None present for the petitioner, even after second
round.
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.123/2005
20.04.2017
None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.307/2016
18.04.2017
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non applicant /State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonkachh, District Dewas in S.T.No.319/2014
whereby; learned judge framed charges against applicant/
accused for the offence under Section 467, 468 and 471
of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that complainant Pooran
Lal lodged a written complaint that he is a residence of
Village Talod, Tehsil Sonkachh, District Dewas and does
farming and 8th Class passed. His brother accused
Atmaram, who is only 6th Class passed, on the basis of his
marksheet of 8th Class got a job of sainik in Home Guards
Department. So action be taken against him. On inquiry
of that report it was found that accused Atmaram got job
in Home Guard Department in the name of Pooranlal @
Atmaram S/o Dhulji on the basis of his brother
Pooranlal's 8th Class marksheet . On that D.G., Home
Guard, wrote a letter to S.P. Dewas for taking action
against co-accused Atmaram. On that Crime No.478/13
was registered at P.S. Sonkachh, District Dewas for the
offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 419 of IPC
against co-accused Atmaram and Police investigated the
matter. During investigation he found that co-accused
Atmaram impersonated the name of Pooran Lal for
getting job of Home Guard (Sainik) on the basis of
marksheet of his brother complainant Pooran Lal. It was
also found that during enquiry of the complaint filled by
Pooran Lal present applicant prepared forged ration card,
marksheet etc. for showing applicant Atmaram as Pooran
Lal, so Police made him also accused in the case and also
filed charge-sheet against applicant. On that charge-sheet
ST No.319/2014 was registered. During trial of the case
learned A.S.J., Sonkachh framed charge against applicant
under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved
from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that accused Atmaram on the basis of forged ration card
and other documents entered into Home Guard service 23
years ago and it is alleged that such forged documents
were prepared by the present applicant being Panchayat
Secretary whereas the present applicant was appointed as
Panchayat Secretary in the year 2002 and therefore, by
any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the
applicant entered some wrong entries in the public record.
There is no evidence against the applicant to connect him
with the crime. There is no evidence that so called forged
documents were prepared by the applicant. Even
otherwise so called forged documents were prepared
much later after appointment of Pooran Lal as Constable
of Home Guard, which was not used in his initial
appointment. The applicant is a Panchayat Secretary of
the Panchayat and has field job and he is not accountable
for any temperament of the record. Learned trial court
without appreciating the fact wrongly framed charges
against applicant.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that it is not the case of the
prosecution that accused Atmaram got job 23 years ago
on the basis of forged document prepared by applicant.
According to prosecution story during enquiry of the
complaint filled by the Pooran Lal applicant prepared
forged ration card, marksheet etc for showing applicant
Atmaram as Pooran Lal,in the year 2012-13. There are
ample evidence against the applicant on record to frame
charge against him. Learned trial court did not commit
any mistake in framing charge under Section 467, 468
and 471 of IPC.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsel for the parties.
Hon'ble apex court in his judgment passed in
Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI report in (2010) 9 SCC 368
after considering our earlier judgements held as under,
On consideration of the authorities about
the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the facts of
each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the Court
will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
Court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into but before framing a charge the
Court must apply its judicial mind on the material
placed on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
vi) At the stage of Section 227 and 228, the Court
is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to find out if the
facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in
conviction or acquittal.
With the above principles, if we peruse the
charge sheet it cannot be presumed that there is no case at
all to proceed against applicant .It is not the case of the
prosecution that Atmaram got job 23 years ago on the
basis of forged document made by the applicant co-
accused. According to prosecution story during enquiry
of the complaint filled by the Pooran Lal applicant
prepared forged ration card, marksheet etc for showing
applicant Atmaram as Pooran Lal,in the year 2012-13.
There are ample evidence against the applicant on record
to frame charge against him. in this regard. So, in the
considered opinion of this court, learned trial court did
not commit any mistake in framing charge against
applicant under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
Criminal Revision has no force. So, this Criminal
Revision is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
M.Cr.C.No.12520/2016
19.04.2017
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.10691/2016, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to file
appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is an electricity company seeking permission for
filing appeal and submitted that due to some reasons
applicant could not file application within time.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
prayer and submitted that application is barred by 115 day
and applicant has not assigned any reason for last 15 days'
delay.
Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, IA
No.10691/2016 is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the
application is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission on 03.05.2017,
as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.558/2015
19.04.2017
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri S.K.Mehra, learned counsel appears on behalf of
Ms. Sangeeta Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks three
weeks' time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7176/2015
19.04.2017
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1545/2016
19.04.2017
Shri D.S.Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.
Respondent No.1 Pramod Kumar is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of respondent No.1
Pramod Kumar before this court 29.06.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 29.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5474/2016
19.04.2017
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal
Case No.590/2005 which is disposed of by Special Railway
Magistrate, Indore by judgment dated 06.08.2014.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with
the record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.878/2016
19.04.2017
Shri Amit Panchal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1561/2016
19.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1048/2016
19.04.2017
Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2384/2016
19.04.2017
Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed 28.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11332/2016
19.04.2017
Shri Ravindra Kaushal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
documents in support of his petition.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12066/2016
19.04.2017
Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
copy of order by which he kept said vehicle in interim
custody.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016
19.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.18/2017
19.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.122/2017
19.04.2017
Shri H. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted
that provision of Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is complied with.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.161/2017
19.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.366/2017
19.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.508/2017
19.04.2017
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Service report of respondent is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2597/2017
19.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary of Crime No.144/2012, P.S.
Bajna, District Ratlam in the next week.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3982/2017
19.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 3 days, returnable within 2 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.338/2017
19.04.2017
Shri M.K.Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4002/2017
19.04.2017
Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.919/2015
19.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter and submitted that there is possibility
of compromise between the parties.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.276/2017
19.04.2017
Ms. Anjana Sanghi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
copy of order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Neemuch in M.Cr.C.No.55/2014 dated 25.06.2015.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1407/2015
19.04.2017
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3363/2015
19.04.2017
Shri B.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed 26.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.119/2016
19.04.2017
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.832/2016
19.04.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1494/2016
19.04.2017
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 & 6.
Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent
No.5.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.307/2016
18.04.2017
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non applicant /State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonkachh, District Dewas in S.T.No.319/2014
whereby; learned judge framed charges against applicant/
accused for the offence under Section 467, 468 and 471
of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that complainant Pooran
Lal lodged a written complaint that he is a residence of
Village Talod, Tehsil Sonkachh, District Dewas and
doing agriculture work and 8th Class passed. His brother
accused Atmaram, who is only 6th Class passed, on the
basis of his marksheet of 8th Class got a job of sainik in
Home Guards Department, so action be taken against
him. On inquiry of that report it was found that accused
Atmaram got job in Home Guard Department in the name
of Pooranlal @ Atmaram S/o Dhulji on the basis of his
brother Pooranlal's 8th Class marksheet . On that D.G.,
Home Guard, wrote a letter to S.P. Dewas for taking
action against co-accused Atmaram. On that at P.S.
Sonkachh, District Dewas registered Crime No.478/13 for
the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 419 of IPC
against co-accused Atmaram and Police investigated the
matter. During investigation he found that co-accused
Atmaram impersonated the name of Pooran Lal for
getting job of Home Guard (Sainik) on the basis of
marksheet of his brother complainant Pooran Lal. It was
also found that during enquiry of the complaint filled by
the Pooran Lal present applicant preparing forged ration
card, marksheet etc for showing applicant Atmaram as
Pooran Lal, so Police also made him accused in the case
and also filed charge-sheet against applicant. On that
charge-sheet ST No.319/2014 was registered. During trial
of the case learned A.S.J., Sonkachh framed charge
against applicant under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this
Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that accused Atmaram on the basis of forged ration card
and other documents entered into Home Guard service 23
years ago and it is alleged that such forged documents
were prepared by the present applicant being Panchayat
Secretary whereas the present applicant was appointed as
Panchayat Secretary in the year 2002 and therefore, by
any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the
applicant entered some wrong entries in the public record.
There is no evidence against the applicant to connect him
with the crime. There is no evidence that so called forged
documents were prepared by the applicant. Even
otherwise so called forged documents were prepared
much later than appointment of Pooran Lal as Constable
of Home Guard, which was not used in his initial
appointment. The applicant is a Panchayat Secretary of
the Panchayat and he is having the field job and he is not
accountable for any temperament of the record. Learned
trial court without appreciating the fact wrongly framed
charges against applicant.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that it is not the case of the
prosecution that on the basis of forged document which
was made by the applicant co-accused Atmaram got job
23 years ago. According to prosecution story, during
enquiry of the complaint filled by the Pooran Lal
applicant prepared forged ration card, marksheet etc. for
showing applicant Atmaram as Pooran Lal, in the year
2012-13. There are ample evidence against the applicant
on record to frame charge against him. Learned trial court
did not commit any mistake in framing charge under
Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsel for the parties.
Hon'ble apex court in his judgment passed in
Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI report in (2010) 9 SCC 368 after
considering earlier judgements reported in (2008) 5 SCC
113 held as under,
"On consideration of the
authorities about the scope of Section
227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made
out. The test to determine prima facie
case would depend upon the facts of
each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been properly
explained, the Court will be fully
justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a
Post Office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities etc. However, at this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh
the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on
record, the Court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though
for conviction the conclusion is required
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the
offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges,
the probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the Court must apply
its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
vi) At the stage of Section 227 and 228,
the Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a
view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even
at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if
it is opposed to common sense or the
broad probabilities of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of
them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage,
he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal."
With the above principles, if we perused the
charge sheet it cannot be presumed that there is no case at
all to proceed against applicant. It is not the case of the
prosecution that on the basis of forged document which
was made by the applicant co-accused Atmaram got job
23 years ago. According to prosecution story, during
enquiry of the complaint filled by the Pooran Lal
applicant prepared forged ration card, marksheet etc. for
showing applicant Atmaram as Pooran Lal, in the year
2012-13. There are ample evidence against the applicant
on record to frame charge against him. in this regard. So,
in the considered opinion of this court, learned trial court
did not commit any mistake in framing charge against
applicant under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
Criminal Revision has no force. So, this Criminal
Revision is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
M.Cr.C. No.2256/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Vitthal Rao Jamra, learned counsel for
the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR of Crime No.0706/2016
registered at P.S. Neelganga, Ujjain for the offence under
Section 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that non-applicant
No.2/complainant Smt. Kamini Akodia lodged a report
before the P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore averring that her
marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2016 with the
applicant according to Hindu customs . After marriage
she went to her matrimonial house and lived with
applicants, but they harassed her for dowry and subjected
her to cruelty. On 12.12.2016, applicants expelled her
from her matrimonial house. Since then she has been at
Indore with her brother. So action be taken against
applicant. On that report Crime No.0/2016 was registered
at P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore against applicants and case
was transferred to P.S. Neelganga, Distt. Ujjain where
Crime No.0706/2016 for the offence under Section 498,
323 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Being
aggrieved from that report applicants filed this petition.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that there is no legal evidence to connect applicants with
the offence. Applicants have falsely been implicated in
this case by the non-applicant No.2/complainant.
Marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with
complainant/non-applicant No.2 on 10.03.2016, after few
days of her marriage applicant No.1 took non-applicant
No.2 to Chhindwara but there non-applicant No.2
doubted that applicant No.1 had relations with his girl
students and tortured applicant. Applicant tried his best
for changing her mind. He took non-applicant no1 to
various tourist places but she created dispute
unnecessarily and on 19.05.2016 went to her parental
house and since then she has been living voluntarily with
her brother at Indore. Applicant filed application under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal right on 16.09.2016, because of that non-
applicant No.2 lodged a false report against the applicants
in P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore. The applicant No.1 who is
working as Lecturer in P.G. College, Chhindwara never
came to Ujjain on 12.06.2016, so FIR be quashed.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that after investigation of FIR
Police found prima facie case against applicants for the
offence under Section 498-A, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
On that Police filed charge-sheet against applicants so
there is no question of quashing of FIR of Crime
No.0706/16.Whether applicant No.1 came at Ujjain on
12.06.2016 or not is a matter of evidence. The document
filed by the applicant along with his petition is not a part
of charge-sheet so it cannot be considered for quashing
the FIR. It is the defence of applicant which is to be
proved by the applicant from his evidence, so at this stage
FIR cannot be quashed.
This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsel for the parties.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others
reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice. The court will not
be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
The following categories of cases can be
stated by way of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised :
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned
Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
Which shows that FIR can only be quashed
where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused. While in the instant case the report lodged by
the complainant/non-applicant No.2 is read as thus,
^^Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;]
Efgyk Fkkuk bUnkSj A e-iz-
fo"k; %& ifr o uun }kjk izrkfMr
djus gsrq A
egksn;]
fuosnu gS fd eSa dkfeuh ifr
ckyd`".k vkdksfn;k fuoklh ^^26
eaPNkeu x.ks'k uxj eUPNkeu x.ks'k
eafnj ds ikl** mTtSu gky fuoklh
201 JS;ka'k ukFk vikVZesV 3@2 Mk-
vkj-,l-Hk.Mkjh ekxZ] bUnkSj e-iz- A
esjh 'kknh 10 ekpZ] 2016 dks
ckyd`".k firk vksadkjyky vkdkfn;k
fuoklh mTtSu esa lkekftd fjfr
fjokt ds vuqlkj gqbZ Fkh A 'kknh ds
ckn vius llqjky xbZ rks eq>s 10
fnu vPNs ls j[kk fQj esjh uun
'khodU;k vkSj esjk ifr ckyd`".k de
ngst dh ekax dks ysdj eq>s ekjihV
dj 'kkjfjd o ekufld izrkfMr djrs
gSa rFkk dgrs gSa fd rq uaxs ?kj ls
vkbZ gS ngst esa uxn :Ik;k ugha fn;k
gS vc rw vius ekrk firk ls
500000 :- ysdj vk A eq>s edku
cukuk gS ;g ckr vius ekrk firk
dks crk;k rks esjs ekrk firk }kjk esjs
ifr vkSj uun dks le>k;k vkSj
500000 :- uxn fn;s rks 10&15
fnu Bhd j[kk fQj esjk ifr o uun
ngst dh ekax dks ysdj fnukad
12-06-16 dks jkr 12-30 cts
eq>s ?kj ls fudky fn;k rks eSus esjs
HkkbZ dks Qksu djds cqyk;k vkSj mudks
lkjh ckr crkbZ A esjs HkkbZ ds }kjk
esjs ifr o uun dks le>k;k x;k rks
esjs HkkbZ ls >xM+k dj gesa Hkxk fn;k
x;k rc ls vius HkkbZ ds lkFk bUnkSj
vk xbZ gwa A eSa viuh ifr ckyd`".k
vkSj uun 'khodU;k dh ngst dh ekax
dks ysdj 'kkjfjd vkSj ekufld :Ik
ls izrkfMr gks pqdh gwa fjiksVZ djrh gwa
dkjokfg dh tk;s A
fnukad 21-9-2016 izkFkhZ
dkfeuh vkdksnh;k**
From the FIR prima facie offence under
Section 498-A, 323 & 34 of IPC are clearly made out
against applicants. whether allegations made by the non-
applicant No.2 in the FIR are true or not cannot be
ascertained at this stage as it requires evidence.
Although Learned counsel for the applicants
in this regard placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex
Court's judgment passed in the case of Ram Saran
Varshney and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another reported in 2016 Cri.L.J. 1251, in which Apex
Court held that,
"Section 498A - Cruelty and harassment by in-
laws - charge-sheet filed against sisters-in-law -
All sisters-in-law are married and living separately
at different places - No clear allegation leveled
against any of them - Visit of sisters-in-law on
occasions of 'grah pravesh' and 'naming ceremony
of daughter of respondent/wife - Cannot be treated
as occasions where they harassed respondent/wife
- Initiation of proceeding against them and
consequent filing of FIR - Liable to be quashed."
But facts of this case do not match with the
present case regarding the act of applicant no.2. It is
clearly mentioned in the FIR that applicant No.2 beated
and mentally tortured her and the veracity of the
statement can be decided after evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicants also placed
reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment passed in
the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s.
Monica reported in (2009) 10 SCC 604, but in this case
Apex Court after evaluating all evidence held that offence
under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 of IPC is not made out
against accused from the prosecution evidence. While in
the instant case evidence has to be recorded .
It appears from the record that after
investigation of the report lodged by the non applicant
No.2, police found prima facie case against the applicant
and filed charge-sheet against the applicants so at this
stage only on the basis of documents filed by the
applicant along with this application it cannot be assumed
that respondent No.2 filed the report just to harass the
applicant based on false allegations.
[8] Prima facie offence under Section 498A is
clearly made out from the FIR, . Whether they are true or
not cannot be ascertained at this stage as it requires
evidence, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. So the
petition is dismissed. Applicant is free to raise all
objections before the trial court at appropriate stage.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Appeal No.531/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed under
Section 71 (6) of Food Safety Act against the order dated
27.01.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Food
Appellate Tribunal, Jhabua, in Criminal Appeal
No.15/2017 whereby he rejected the appellant's
application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for staying
the recovery of fine amount imposed by the Adjudicating
Officer/Addl. District Magistrate, Jhabua in Case
No.35/Food/2016 during pendency of appeal and ordered
that said appeal will not be heard without depositing the
fine amount.
[2] Brief facts of the case are that on the
complaint of Food Safety Officer, Jhabua a Case
No.35/Food/2016 was registered against the appellant in
the court of Adjudicating Officer/Additional District
Magistrate, Jhabua. Learned Adjudicating Officer after
framing the charge against the appellant under Section 26
(2)(ii) read with Section 52 of Food Safety Act tried him.
After trial he found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid
offence and sentenced him with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-
against which the appellant filed an appeal before the
Sessions Judge and also filed an application under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for staying the fine amount during
pendency of appeal. Learned Sessions Judge rejected his
prayer by order dated 27.01.2017 and ordered that said
appeal shall not be heard without depositing the fine
amount. Being aggrieved with the same, appellant has
filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] The only contention of the learned counsel for
the applicant is that the appellate court admitted the
appeal for final hearing. In that circumstances, appellate
court cannot ordered that appeal shall not be heard
without depositing the fine amount.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed the prayer and submitted that learned appellate
court did not commit any mistake in ordering that appeal
shall not be heard without depositing the fine amount.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. It is clear from
the record that learned trial court had already ordered that
the fine amount shall be recoverable as arrear of land
revenue from the appellant and the appellant's license for
selling of food also is suspended till depositing the
amount. Learned appellate court already admitted the
appeal for final hearing. In these circumstances, he cannot
reject the appeal without deciding it on merit. In the case
of Shyam Deo V/s. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1971
SC 1606 the Apex Cour theld that,
"In a criminal appeal it is duty of the
court to go through the records irrespective of
the fact whether the appellant appears or does
not appear, if he appears he is bound to be
heard, if not, the record should be pursued
and the appeal disposed of on the merits,
criminal court under the provisions of Section
386 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed in
default."
So, in the considered opinion of this court
learned appellate court committed mistake in holding that
without depositing the fine amount the Appeal shall not
be heard. So this appeal is partly allowed and it is
directed that the learned appellate court shall hear the
appeal on merit as early as possible irrespective of the
fact whether the appellant deposits the fine amount or not.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
F.A.No.518/2016
18.04.2017
Shri Ashok Chitle, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri
Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to
argue the matter and pray for listing the case after summer
vacation.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.06.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.64/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 2 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.92/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.107/2017
18.04.2017
Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.294/2017
18.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of documents annexed with the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent also seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12971/2016
18.04.2017
Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the
complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.970/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1898/2017
18.04.2017
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2451/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with
the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2458/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2734/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks four weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3039/2017
18.04.2017
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3273/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3289/2017
18.04.2017
Shri R.K.Gondale, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3411/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3728/2017
18.04.2017
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.4/State.
This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.2619/2016, which has
been dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated
08.03.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
mistakenly the counsel for the petitioner could not mark the
case in the daily cause list, therefore, could not mark his
presence on the said date of hearing. Consequently, in
absence of applicant and his counsel M.Cr.C.
No.2619/2016 was dismissed for want of prosecution. His
mistake is bona fide, so M.Cr.C.No.2619/2016 be restored
to its original position.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed
and M.Cr.C.No.2619/2016 is restored to its original
position.
Office is directed to place the M.Cr.C.
No.2619/2016 for hearing on 19.05.2017.
M.Cr.C.No.3728/2017 stands disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3597/2017
13.04.2017
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in
Criminal Revision No.89/2016 whereby; he affirmed the
order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rajpur in Criminal Case No.135/2015
whereby; he rejected applicant's application filed under
Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C.for getting interim custody of
vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38-P-9425 sized by
the police in Crime No.435/2015 registered at P.S. Rajpur
for the offence under section 4/6, 9 of M.P. Gowansh
Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (here-in-after referred
to as "Adhiniyam") and Section 5/180, 3/181 and 66/192
of Motor Vehicle Act.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that Police Rajpur seized
Vehicle No.HR-38-P-9425 on illegally carrying, cow-
progeny and registered Crime No.435/2015 for the
offence under Section 4/6, 9 of M.P. Gowansh Vadh
Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 5/180, 3/181
and 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act. Applicant filed an
application for getting said vehicle in his interim custody
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class which was
rejected by the order dated 03.10.2016. Being aggrieved
from that order applicant filed Cr.R.No.89/2016 which
was also rejected by the Second A.S.J., Barwani by order
dated 11.06.2011 observing that the proceeding of
confiscation was started by the Collector, so it is not
appropriate to give interim custody of said vehicle to the
applicant. Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed
this petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that applicant is a registered owner of the said vehicle.
Only on the ground that confiscation proceeding was
started court cannot deny to give interim custody of
vehicle. Learned trial court as well as appellate court
committed mistake in rejecting applicant's prayer.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed the prayer and submitted that because
confiscation proceeding started against the said vehicle so
learned trial court as well as revisional court did not
commit any mistake in rejecting applicant's prayer.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. Although it
appears from the record that Collector started
confiscation proceeding against the said vehicle but it
also appears that the order of confiscation has not yet
been passed by the district magistrate. A bare reading of
Section 11(5) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh
Adhiniyam, 2004 along with Rules 5 and 6 of M.P.
Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 makes it clear that
there is no restriction in releasing the seized vehicle on
supurdginama during the pendency of confiscation
proceedings. This Court in the case of Raees V/s. State
of M.P. reported in 2013 (5) M.P.H.T. 233, has observed
that,
"mere commencement of the
confiscation proceedings before the District
Magistrate under Rules 5 and 6 of the M.P.
Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 do
not oust the jurisdiction of Judicial
Magistrate/trial Court to release the seized
vehicle."
[6] Thus, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of
this Court, in my opinion, the Courts below have
committed illegality in dismissing the application of the
applicant under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. for
releasing the offending vehicle on Supurdginama.
Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order dated
16.11.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Barwani in Criminal Revision No.89/2016 and
order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rajpur in Criminal Case No.135/2015 are
hereby set aside and it is directed that on furnishing the
Supurdginama by the petitioner to the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned,
the seized vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38-P-9425
be released subject to complying following conditions :-
(i) That, applicant shall produce the same before
the Trial Court as and when directed to do so.
(ii) That, in the meantime, he shall not alienate the
vehicle or make use of vehicle for any unlawful purpose;
and
(iii) that they shall not carry out any change in the
colour and outward appearance of the vehicle.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.108/2016
17.04.2017
Shri J.B.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 05.05.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.71/2017
17.04.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that
there is possibility of settlement through mediation. So,
office is directed to appoint a Mediator and place the matter
before the Mediator on 15.05.2017.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the
Mediator on 15.05.2017. Parties are also directed to co-
operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.
Mediator is directed to submit the report after
mediation.
Let the matter be listed on 16.05.2017 along with
the Mediator's report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.104/2016
17.04.2017
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri D.M.Kirtane, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.249/2015
17.04.2017
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.993/2001
17.04.2017
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued for appearance of appellant
Kartarsingh not received as yet.
Let the matter be listed along with service report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.817/2003
17.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Mangilal @ Mangusingh is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of appellant Mangilal @
Mangusingh before this court 21.06.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 21.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.550/2004
17.04.2017
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri S.K.Chourasia, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
Shri Poorva Mahajan, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the appellant and LRs of
appellant No.1 wants time to file reply of IA No.7980/2015
and IA No.6197/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.164/2012
17.04.2017
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to
supply the copy of reply of IA No.1176/2012.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.104/2014
17.04.2017
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
reply of IA No.2187/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.649/2015
17.04.2017
Shri T.N.Singh, learned Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Hemlata Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file
an affidavit of appellant.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.1867/2016
17.04.2017
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.
None present for the respondent No.2, even after
service of notice.
Service report of respondent No.1 is not received as
yet.
Appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within
7 days.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.209/2017
17.04.2017
Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
produce appellant Kapil Jhava before this court and wants a
fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MA No.358/2017
17.04.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Heard on IA No.1322/2017, an application under
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay.
Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the
next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded
amount within one month.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.631/2017
17.04.2017
Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3375/2017
17.04.2017
Shri Sanjay sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.923/2015
17.04.2017
Shri G.L.Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Appellant is directed to pay process fee within seven
days.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1350/2008
17.04.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellant/State.
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Respondent Satish Rai is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.3066/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of respondent Satish Rai on
05.04.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of respondent Satish Rai on 05.04.2017 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 03.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1170/2016
17.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Respondents No.1 Pintu @ Lokendrasingh and No.2
Samarth @ Samarsingh are present in person before this
court and identified by his counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
respondents furnished bail bond before the Special Judge,
Dewas, so respondents are directed to remain present before
the Registry on 10.07.2017 and on such further dates as may
be fixed in this behalf.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1479/2015
17.04.2017
Shri Ankit Dubey, learned counsel appears on behalf
of Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.1603/20170, an application for
substituted service upon respondents No.1 and 2.
On due consideration, application is allowed.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice
to respondents No.1 and 2 by way of publication in the local
newspaper circulated in the local area in Neemuch where
respondents No.1 and 2 are said to be resided.
Learned counsel for the appellant further seeks time
to argue on admission.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3899/2017
13.04.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel with Shri
Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas, Distt. Dewas in
Criminal Case No.1617/2010 whereby; learned Judge
dismissed the applicant's application filed under Section
311 read with Section 325(3) of Cr.P.C. for recalling the
witness R.S.Jhala (PW-13) for further cross-examination.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that applicant/accused is
facing trial in Criminal Case No.1617/2010 for the
offence under Sections 457, 380, 420, 467 and 468 of
IPC. Earlier this case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Dewas. During trial of the case learned JMFC
recorded the statements of all the relevant witnesses but
at the time of pronouncement of judgment case was sent
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas under section 325
of Cr.P.C by him . During trial of the case before the
C.J.M., Dewas applicant filed an application under
Section 311 read with Section 325(3) of Cr.P.C. for
recalling the prosecution witness R.S.Jhala (PW-13) for
further cross-examination which was rejected by the
C.J.M by order dated 06.04.2017 observing that applicant
had cross-examined R.S.Jhala (PW-13) one & half years
ago and filed this application only for hindering the trial.
Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this
petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that earlier at the time of recording the statement of
R.S.Jhala (PW-13), his lawyer was not present. So
applicant wants to cross-examine R.S.Jhala (PW-13)
through his counsel, so applicant filed an application for
further cross-examination of R.S.Jhala. Learned trial
court without appreciating that fact rejected applicant's
application.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed the prayer.
[5] It appears from the record that applicant's
counsel was not present earlier when Judicial Magistrate
First Class recorded the statement of R.S.Jhala (PW-13).
Applicant himself cross-examined R.S.Jhala. In these
circumstances, it is appropriate that applicant Manoj be
given an opportunity to cross-examine R.S.Jhala (PW-13)
through his counsel.. Therefore, petition is allowed and
order of C.J.M. is set aside and he is directed to call
R.S.Jhala (PW-13) for further cross-examination by
applicant No.1.
[6] It is made clear that if applicant fails to cross-
examine R.S.Jhala, on the date fixed for the same by
him,without any sufficient cause, learned trial court is
free to pass an appropriate order in this regard.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Civil Revision No.54/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Advocate with
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Anish Ashapure, learned counsel with
Shri Juned Khan, learned counsel for the caveator.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
17.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Civil Revision No.193/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Sr. Advocate with
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the non-
applicants No.1 to 8.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the non applicant no.9/State.
This Civil Revision has been filed under
Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order
dated 17.09.2016 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-II,
Dewas, in Civil Suit No.34-A/2013, whereby learned
Civil Judge rejected applicant's application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for
the disposal of this Civil Revision are that non-applicants
No.1 to 8/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.34-A/2013
before the 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Dewas for declaring
them owner of the suit land and restraining the applicants
from interfering in possession of suit land.
During trial of the suit applicants filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averring that
non-applicants filed a Civil Suit declaring them owner of
suit land on adverse possession, while declaring them
owner of suit land on the basis of adverse possession is
not maintainable. Non-applicants themselves averred in
their plaint that they took information regarding partition
of suit land in the year 2009 while non-applicants filed
this Civil Suit in the year 2013, so this Civil Suit is also
time barred. Non-applicants wanted permanent injunction
on the basis of oral partition while in the revenue record
suit land recorded in joint name of applicants and non-
applicants. So, this civil suit is not maintainable. Non-
applicants also not valued their suit properly. So also this
civil suit is not maintainable and pray for rejection.
Non-applicants in their reply opposed the
prayer.
Learned trial court rejected their application
by order dated 17.09.2016 observing that non-applicants
averred in their plaint that cause of action arises in the
year 2013, from that suit is under limitation. Suit land of
applicants' is an agriculture land and on the basis of
revenue record court fees of valued suit is Rs.1,000/- and
for permanent injunction Rs.100/- and paid proper court
fees whether applicant is the owner or not of suit land on
the basis of adverse possession it requires evidence to
decide. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed
this Civil Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that applicants and non-applicants are the member of a
joint family and enjoying the suit property which is
ancestral property. On 17.08.2009, present applicant filed
an application under Section 178 of M.P.L.R.C. Before
Tehsildar, Dewas seeking partition of the suit land and
the same got registered as 06/A-27/2009-10, while the
present suit was filed by the non-applicant on 23.02.2013,
so suit is clearly time barred and also plaintiffs claimed
adverse possession on the suit land. From bare averment
of the plaint appeared that non-applicants were in
knowledge of the applicants action from the year 2009
when an application for partition was brought by the
present applicants but the civil suit was filed in the year
2013 which is filed after four years from the date of
knowledge, so it is clearly time barred. The limitation
must be calculated from the date of knowledge of the act
of action on which the suit is relied likewise declaration
of ownership of land on the basis of adverse possession
cannot be sought. The applicant filed civil suit on oral
partition held way back between the ancestors of the
applicants and non-applicants to the present suit. Though
this aspect has not been considered by the court below
that no suit can be brought by any of the parties relying
on an oral partition until and unless such petition is
reduced into writing by the parties and must be registered.
The cause of action on which the suit is relied is clearly
barred by law of registration. So learned trial court
committed mistake in rejecting applicants' application.
[4] On the contrary, learned counsel for the non
applicants submitted that issue raised by the applicants is
required evidence to decide, so learned trial court did not
commit any mistake in rejecting applicants' application.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. The issue raised
by the applicants is required evidence to decide so at this
stage the issue cannot be decided. It is settled that at the
time of deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule
11 of CPC only averment of the plaint to see and assum
correct. Non-applicant filed Civil Suit not only for
declaration but also for injunction on the basis of
possession and clearly averred in his plaint that cause of
action arose when applicants interfered in their possession
provisions on suit land. So for the injunction this suit is
clearly maintainable. Suit on the basis of oral partition is
also maintainable. Although learned counsel for the
applicants placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgment
passed in Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another
V/s. Union of India and another reported in 2011 (4)
SCC (Civil) 484, in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that,
"Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58 - If a suit is based
on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will
begin to run from the date when the right to sue first
accrues - Successive violation of the right will not give
rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be
dismissed if it is beyond the the period of limitation
counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued."
But the fact of the case does not match with
the present case. In that case suit was filed restraining the
defendant from interfering in the possession of plaintiff
and from demolishing or selling, any part of existing
structure of suit house and it was found that plaintiff was
in possession of suit land for 15 years. He also placed
reliance on Apex Court's judgment passed in Ram
Prakash Gupta V/s. Rajiv Kumar Gupta reported in 2007
(11) JT 472, in which Apex Court held that,
"Civil Procedure Code, Order 7, Rule 11(d) -
Rejection of plaint - Power of trial court to reject the
complaint - Court can exercise the power at any stage of
the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial."
He also placed reliance on the judgment
passed in Gurudwara Prabandak Committee................
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1306/2015
13.04.2017
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
PUD received from the District Jail, Indore.
Learned counsel for the applicant Roopchand @
Bachha submitted that applicant is on bail in this case.
Because he was in custody in another criminal case so this
court issued production warrant against the applicant for
securing his personal appearance before the Registry in this
case. Meanwhile, applicant released on bail in another case
but he in jail because of production warrant issued by this
court for securing presence of applicant in this case, so Jailer
be directed to release the applicant.
It appears from the record that applicant was on bail
in this case, so, Jailer of District Jail, Indore is directed to
release the applicant if he is not required in another case.
Jailer is also directed to place the report on the next date of
hearing that whether applicant has undergone the sentence
awarded in this case or not?
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1052/2016
13.04.2017
Shri K.C.Kabra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Applicant Abdul Majid is present in person.
Respondents No.1 Smt. Afsana and No.2 Ku.
Anayana are present in person.
Both the parties seek time to argue the matter, so
matter is adjourned.
Learned counsel for the respondents is also directed
to produce the statement regarding depositing of interim
maintenance awarded by the trial court.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1306/2015
13.04.2017
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
PUD received from the District Jail, Indore.
Learned counsel for the applicant Roopchand @
Bachha submitted that applicant is on bail in this case.
Because he was in custody in another criminal case so this
court issued production warrant against the applicant for
securing his personal appearance before the Registry in this
case. Meanwhile, applicant released on bail in another case
but he in jail because of production warrant issued by this
court for securing presence of applicant in this case, so Jailer
be directed to release the applicant.
It appears from the record that applicant was on bail
in this case, so, Jailer of District Jail, Indore is directed to
release the applicant if he is not required in another case.
Jailer is also directed to place the report on the next date of
hearing that whether applicant has undergone the sentence
awarded in this case or not?
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12449/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of petition to the counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to
produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.140/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with
liberty to raise all objections which are raised in this petition
before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Prayer is allowed.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.263/2007
13.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1646/2016
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10330/2016
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter and wants a fix date.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed 08.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1421/2006
13.04.2017
Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1108/2005
13.04.2017
Shri N.Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Verification report of factum of death of appellant
No.1 Geetabai is not received as yet.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State again
prays for four weeks time to verify the factum of death of
appellant No.1 Geetabai.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 09.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1055/2012
13.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1209/2012
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.1324/2017, which is an application
for taking documents as additional evidence on record.
Application (IA No.1324/2017) shall be considered
at the time of final hearing.
The appeal is already admitted appeal. So, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.df
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1507/2012
13.04.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Prabhash Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.646/2013
13.04.2017
Shri Arun Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of respondents No.1 to 3 is not
received as yet.
Appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.2/2013
13.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Appellant is directed to pay process fee within seven
days.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8980/2013
13.04.2017
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Notice issued to respondents returned unserved.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along
with correct address.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8980/2013
13.04.2017
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Notice issued to respondents returned unserved.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along
with correct address.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.150/2014
13.04.2017
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks four weeks
time to comply with the court order to file withdrawal
application of the suit.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1918/2014
13.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri V.Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of
Shri S.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the surety.
Non-bailable warrant of appellants No.1 Chanchal @
Chavanni and No.2 Shyam Varmunda is returned unserved.
Again issue non-bailable warrant for securing the
presence of appellants No.1 Chanchal @ Chavanni and No.2
Shyam Varmunda before this court on the next date of
hearing.
Learned counsel for the surety seeks time to file
reply.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1257/2015
13.04.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant No.1 Surbhan is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of appellant No.1 Surbhan
before this court 23.06.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 23.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.81/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
reply of IA No.7521/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.395/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Solanki, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.R.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
According to mediation report, mediation is not
successful.
Learned counsel for the respondent wants time to file
reply of IA No.2939/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed on 08.05.2017 along with the
record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.693/2016
13.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Ankit Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondent.
According to mediation report, mediation is not
successful.
Office is directed to call for the record before the
next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with
the record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.544/2014
13.04.2017
Shri A.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Dilip Sirsagar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 01.05.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2968/2015
13.04.2017
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service of
notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
again notice be issued to secure presence of respondents No.1
and 2 by hamdast mode.
Prayer is allowed.
On payment of requisite process fee within one week,
office is directed to get notice served by hamdast mode.
Let the matter be listed after four week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.68/2016
13.04.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1124/2014
13.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that they
have already deleted the name of applicant No.1 from the
petition memo on 08.02.2017.
Today the matter has wrongly been listed. Appeal is
already admitted, so list the matter for final hearing in due
course.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA.No.799/2016
13.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1545/2017, which is an application
to refund the excess court fees.
As per office report, appellant paid Rs.27,410/-
excess court fees.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to refund excess amount of court
fee Rs.27,410/- to the appellant.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13018/2016
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.687/2017
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017
13.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2662/2017
13.04.2017
Ms. Sonali Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2820/2017
13.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2256/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Vitthal Rao Jamra, learned counsel for
the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR of Crime No.0706/2016
registered at P.S. Neelganga, Ujjain for the offence under
Section 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to
the disposal of this petition are that non-applicant
No.2/complainant Smt. Kamini Akodiya lodged a report
before the P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore averring that her
marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2016 with the
applicant. According to Hindu custom after marriage she
went to matrimonial house and lived with applicants, but
applicants harassed her and subjected to cruelty in
demand of dowry. On 12.12.2016, applicants expelled her
from her matrimonial house. Since then she lived at
Indore with her brother, so action be taken against
applicant. On that report Crime No.0/2016 was registered
at P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore against applicants and case
was transferred to P.S. Neelganga, Distt. Ujjain where
Crime No.0706/2016 for the offence under Section 498,
323 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Being
aggrieved from that report applicants filed this petition.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that there is no legal evidence to connect applicants with
the offence. Applicants have been falsely implicated in
this case by the non-applicants. Marriage of applicant
No.1 was solemnized with complainant/non-applicant on
10.03.2016, but after few days of her marriage applicant
No.1 took complainant to Chhindwara but in Chhindwara
non-applicant/complainant doubted that applicant is
having relations with his students and tortured applicant.
Applicant tried his best for changing mind of
complainant. He took complainant to various tourist
places but without any reason complainant created
dispute and on 19.05.2016 went to her parental house and
since then she lived with her parents at Indore voluntarily,
because of that applicant filed application under Section 9
of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right on
16.09.2016, because of that non-applicant No.2 lodged a
false complaint against the applicants in P.S. Mahila
Thana, Indore and also averred that applicant came Ujjain
on 12.06.2016 and beated complainant while applicant
No.1 who is working as Lecturer in P.G. College,
Chhindwara never came Ujjain on 12.06.2016, so FIR be
quashed.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that after investigation of FIR
Police found prima facie case against applicants for the
offence under Section 498-A, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
On that Police filed charge-sheet against applicants for
the offence under Section 498 and 506 of IPC, so there is
no question of quashment of FIR of Crime No.0706/16.
Applicant No.1 never came Ujjain on 12.06.2016 is a
matter of evidence. The document filed by the applicant
along with his petition is not a part of charge-sheet so it
cannot be considered for quashing the FIR. It is the
defence of applicant which is to be proved by the
applicant in his evidence, so at this stage FIR cannot be
quashed.
This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsel for the parties.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported
in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-
"The power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and
with circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to
act according to its whim or caprice. The court will
not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
The following categories of cases can be
stated by way of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised :
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned
Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
It appears that the report lodged by the
complainant/non-applicant is read as thus,
^^Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;]
Efgyk Fkkuk bUnkSj A e-iz-
fo"k; %& ifr o uun }kjk izrkfMr djus
gsrq A
egksn;]
fuosnu gS fd eSa dkfeuh ifr
ckyd`".k vkdksfn;k fuoklh ^^26 eaPNkeu
x.ks'k uxj eUPNkeu x.ks'k eafnj ds ikl**
mTtSu gky fuoklh 201 JS;ka'k ukFk
vikVZesV 3@2 Mk- vkj-,l-Hk.Mkjh ekxZ]
bUnkSj e-iz- A esjh 'kknh 10 ekpZ] 2016
dks ckyd`".k firk vksadkjyky vkdkfn;k
fuoklh mTtSu esa lkekftd fjfr fjokt ds
vuqlkj gqbZ Fkh A 'kknh ds ckn vius
llqjky xbZ rks eq>s 10 fnu vPNs ls j[kk
fQj esjh uun 'khodU;k vkSj esjk ifr
ckyd`".k de ngst dh ekax dks ysdj eq>s
ekjihV dj 'kkjfjd o ekufld izrkfMr
djrs gSa rFkk dgrs gSa fd rq uaxs ?kj ls
vkbZ gS ngst esa uxn :Ik;k ugha fn;k gS
vc rw vius ekrk firk ls 500000 :-
ysdj vk A eq>s edku cukuk gS ;g ckr
vius ekrk firk dks crk;k rks esjs ekrk
firk }kjk esjs ifr vkSj uun dks le>k;k
vkSj 500000 :- uxn fn;s rks 10&15
fnu Bhd j[kk fQj esjk ifr o uun ngst
dh ekax dks ysdj fnukad 12-06-16 dks
jkr 12-30 cts eq>s ?kj ls fudky fn;k
rks eSus esjs HkkbZ dks Qksu djds cqyk;k vkSj
mudks lkjh ckr crkbZ A esjs HkkbZ ds }kjk
esjs ifr o uun dks le>k;k x;k rks esjs
HkkbZ ls >xM+k dj gesa Hkxk fn;k x;k rc
ls vius HkkbZ ds lkFk bUnkSj vk xbZ gwa A
eSa viuh ifr ckyd`".k vkSj uun 'khodU;k
dh ngst dh ekax dks ysdj 'kkjfjd vkSj
ekufld :Ik ls izrkfMr gks pqdh gwa fjiksVZ
djrh gwa dkjokfg dh tk;s A
fnukad 21-9-2016 izkFkhZ
dkfeuh vkdksnh;k**
From the FIR prima facie evidence under
Section 498-A, 323 & 34 of IPC are clearly made out.
From the FIR whether allegations made by the non-
applicant No.2 in the report are true or not? it cannot be
ascertained at this stage as it requires evidence, therefore,
FIR cannot be quashed, so the petition is dismissed.
Applicant is free to raise all objections before the trial
court at the appropriate stage.
Learned counsel for the applicants in this
regard also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's
judgment passed in the case of Ram Saran Varshney
and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in 2016 Cri.L.J. 1251, in which Apex Court
held that,
"Section 498A - Cruelty and harassment by
in-laws - charge-sheet filed against sisters-in-law -
All sisters-in-law are married and living separately
at different places - No clear allegation leveled
against any of them - Visit of sisters-in-law on
occasions of 'grah pravesh' and 'naming ceremony
of daughter of respondent/wife - Cannot be treated
as occasions where they harassed respondent/wife
- Initiation of proceeding against them and
consequent filing of FIR - Liable to be quashed."
But facts of this case do not match with the
offence registered against applicant No.1, who is the
husband of non-applicant No.2 and applicant No.2 who is
the sister of non-applicant No.2 and lived at Ujjain and it
is clearly mentioned in the FIR that applicant No.2 beated
and mentally tortured her whether the allegation is true or
false it has to be decided after evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicants placed
reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment passed in
the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s.
Monica reported in (2009) 10 SCC 604, but in this case
Apex Court after evaluating all evidence held that offence
under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 of IPC is not made out
against accused but in this case trial is not supported so
this case also does not help the applicants.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.304/2001
12.04.2017
Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue SPC for appearance of appellant
Subhashchandra Jain on 03.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.409/2006
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Report of perpetual warrant of appellant No.2
Pyarji is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
report perpetual warrant of appellant No.2 Pyarji on
29.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.76/2012
12.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
reply of IA No.1317/17, IA No.1318/17, IA No.1319/17 and
IA No.1186/17.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.663/2013
12.04.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.498/2015
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
reply of IA No.4333/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017, as prayed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.552/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.805/2016
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to file reply of IA No.9919/2016 and IA No.8568/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA No.499/2004
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1348/2015
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion
stage with the consent of parties on 03.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.80/2016
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017 as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.161/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1884/2017
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12951/2016
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
reply of IA No.11071/2016.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.466/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant Praveen Kumar is present in person before
the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2431/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Praveen Kumar on
16.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Praveen Kumar on 16.03.2017 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 03.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.386/2015
12.04.2017
Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant Amjad @ Golu is present in person before
the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2442/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Amjad @ Golu on
the date of appearance.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due
to illness applicant could not appear before the Registry on
the date of appearance.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of applicant Amjad @ Golu on the date of
appearance is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 28.06.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.347/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Office is directed to place the matter along with IA
No.2762/2017 in the next week.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1884/2017
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1325/2015
12.04.2017
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the non-
applicant.
It appears from the record that by order dated
24.06.2016 this Criminal Revision has already been
disposed of. Office has wrongly listed this Revision today
before this Bench.
Office is directed to consigned the record of this
Revision in the record room as per law.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC. No.264/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.283/2009
12.04.2017
None present for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant No.3 Rama @ Ramla is not present.
Issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of appellant Rama @
Ramla before this court 21.06.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 21.06.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1190/2009
12.04.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
produce respondent Arun Modi before this court and wants a
fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.46/2017
12.04.2017
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to file reply of IA No.916/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC. No.279/2017
12.04.2017
Shri A.S.Bahrawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.274/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed along with R.P.No.122/17 in
the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3118/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
applicants and complainant entered into a compromise and
amicably settled their dispute and also wants time to produce
the complainant before the Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2795/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.369/2017
12.04.2017
Shri K.C.Kaushal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3674/2017
12.04.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
copy of private complaint.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3808/2017
12.04.2017
Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
copy of documents.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.651/2017
12.04.2017
Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce case diary.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.259/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter and to file some documents.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.3/2017
12.04.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.33/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.80/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.119/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.222/2017
12.04.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri D.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1143/2014
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.316/2008
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1407/2015
12.04.2017
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.805/2016
12.04.2017
Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.R.No.11562/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1431/2016
12.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.539/2016
12.04.2017
Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mahesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.574/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
None present for the respondent.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Let the matter be listed for consideration on IA
No.1847/17 and for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.165/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Ritesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Chetan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks'
time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.42/2017
12.04.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1809/2015
12.04.2017
Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.62/2017
12.04.2017
Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.455/2016
12.04.2017
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.700/2016
12.04.2017
Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1579/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
12.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3743/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to
argue the matter on maintainability of the petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.411/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Revindra Desai, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3599/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11142/2016
11.04.2017
None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.400/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2966/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
some documents in support of his petition.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3485/2017
11.04.2017
Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
As prayed, let the matter be listed along with
M.Cr.C. No.2098/16 in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1184/2016
11.04.2017
Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after second
round.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1613/2016
11.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1627/2016
11.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.68/2017
11.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri R.K.Namdev, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.435/2017 to the counsel for the
respondent before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2597/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2672/2017
11.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1549/2017
11.04.2017
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.195/2016
11.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.174/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Vaibhav Asava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given. I.R., if any, shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3170/2017
11.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3634/2017
11.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
some documents in support of his petition.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1357/2014
11.04.2017
Shri Tausif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Shubham Rajpur, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 21.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2874/2014
11.04.2017
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 24.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1019/2015
11.04.2017
Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to produce the case diary.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1046/2015
11.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.118/2016
11.04.2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.695/2016
11.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue on admission.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1013/2016
11.04.2017
Shri Gulab Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1133/2016
11.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in motion
stage with the consent of both the parties on 08.05.2017, as
prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1425/2016
11.04.2017
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service of
notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 05.05.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1498/2016
11.04.2017
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 23.06.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5497/2016
11.04.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5763/2016
11.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.13089/2016
10.04.2017
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None for the respondent.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.249/2016
whereby, learned ASJ affirmed the order dated 26.09.2016
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Criminal
Case No.7754/2015 whereby; learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ujjain rejected the applicant's application filed under
section 45 of Evidence act for getting the writing of questioned
cheques (bearing Nos.000033, 000034, 000035, 000036, 000037
and 000039) examined by the Handwriting Expert.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the
disposal of this petition are that applicant is facing trial for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
for dishonour of cheques in Criminal Case No.7754/2015
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain.
During trial of the case on the stage of defence evidence,
applicant filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence
Act stating that writing on the said cheques is not of the applicant
therefore, he be permitted to get the writing of the said cheque
examined by the Handwriting Expert.
Non-applicant/complainant in his reply opposed
the prayer.
Learned trial court by the order dated 29.06.2016
rejected applicant's application observing that earlier also
applicant filed application in this regard which was rejected by
this court by order dated 19.08.2016. Applicant again filed that
application for the same cause of action which was not
maintainable. Being aggrieved with the order dated 26.09.2016
applicant filed Cr.R.No.249/2016, which was disposed of by
A.S.J. Ujjain by order dated 05.11.2016 observing that
applicant has not challenged the signatures on cheques, so there
is no need to examine the writing on the aforesaid cheques and
rejected the applicant's prayer. Being aggrieved with that order
applicant filed this petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant clearly took the defence that said cheques had not been
filled by the applicant therefore, the applicant wanted to get the
cheque examined by Handwriting Expert for verifying his writing,
which is necessary to find out the truth. The learned trial Court as
well as the appellate Court have committed mistake in rejecting
the application.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the
prayer and submitted that applicant did not take the defence that
signature and writing on the said cheque is not of applicant. So
Trial Court as well as Revisional Court did not commit any
mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.
[3] This Court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The only contention of the applicant is that the name and
amount written in the said cheques is not in his handwriting
.But applicant admitted that signatures on the aforesaid cheques
are of his, so there is no need to examine the writing on the said
cheques. In the considered opinion of this Court learned Trial
Court as well as Revisional Court did not commit any mistake
in rejecting the applicant's prayer. Hence, the petition has no
force and is hereby rejected.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.32/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Ms. Sanju Baghel, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent
of both the parties.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order
dated 17.10.2016 passed by the First Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.1069/2015, whereby
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore allowed the
non-applicant's prayer and directed the applicant to pay
Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to the
disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting
maintenance from the applicant before the First Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore averring that she is a
legally wedded wife of applicant. Her marriage was
solemnized with applicant on 30.06.2012. She is unable to
maintain herself, while applicant is able to maintain her but
not maintaining her without any sufficient reason. so
applicant be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as
maintenance. She also filed an application for getting interim
maintenance during trial of the case.
Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer.
Learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Indore by order dated 17.10.2016 allowed the
application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- as
interim maintenance to the non-applicant during trial of the
case.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
non-applicant was earlier employed with SKS Institute of
Technology and Science and Index Medical College and
presently also works as HR Administrator and is able to
maintain herself. So she is not entitled to get interim
maintenance. On the other hand, applicant is a Govt.
employee and getting salary only of Rs.23,663/- and his
mother, who is suffering from various diseases is also
dependent upon him and approximately Rs.20,000/- per
month are spent on the treatment of his mother and domestic
expenses. Learned trial court without appreciating that fact
wrongly directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to non-applicant. Non-applicant also
filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act
before the Family court, Rewa during trial of that case.
Learned Family Court, Rewa also directed the applicant to
pay Rs.3,000/- per month to non-applicant by order dated
28.09.2016 passed in H.M.A. Case No.02A/2016. So non
applicant is not entitled to get interim maintenance .
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that non-applicant is unable to maintain
herself. The applicant is in Govt. job and earning salary of
Rs.23,663/- and able to maintain non-applicant. So learned
trial court did not commit any mistake in directing the
applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance
to the non-applicant. Although Principal Judge, Family court,
Rewa also directed applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to non-applicant in H.M.A. Case
No.02A/2016 but that case was filed by the applicant against
non-applicant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in
the Family Court, Rewa. Non-applicant resides at Indore so
for defending that case, and traveling from Indore to Rewa
money is also required while applicant gets salary of
Rs.23,663/- per month. So looking to the applicant's salary
and the inflation interim maintenance awarded by the First
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore is not on
higher side and prays for rejection.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the learned counsel of both the parties.
Although applicant submitted that non-applicant presently
works as HR Administration but he has not filed any
document showing that non-applicant presently works in any
institution. On the contrary non-applicant clearly denied the
above fact. It is admitted that the non-applicant is a legally
wedded wife of applicant so it is the duty of the applicant to
maintain her. Applicant himself admitted that he is getting
Rs.23,663/- per month as salary. So looking to the salary of
applicant amount of interim maintenance awarded by the
First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore does
not appear to be on higher side on any count .
Although Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa
also in H.M.A. Case No.02A/2016 directed the applicant to
pay Rs.3,000/- per month during trial of that case, but that
case was filed by the applicant himself in Rewa knowingly
that non-applicant lived in Indore, so non-applicant has to
spend money for defending the case and traveling from
Indore to Rewa. So, on the ground that Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rewa also directed the applicant to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month to the non-applicant in H.M.A. Case
No.02A/2016, the order passed by the First Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in MJC No.1069/2015
whereby; he directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per
month as interim maintenance to the non-applicant cannot be
set aside.
So petition has no force and is hereby rejected.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.359/2013
10.04.2017
Ms. Geetanjali Chaurasia, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.1136/2017, which is an application
filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for legal heirs of
appellant No.2 Shri Ashok Patel to be brought on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no
objection in allowing the application. So, application (IA
No.1136/17) is allowed and legal heirs Smt. Rekha and
Priyanka are permitted to be taken on record in place of
appellant No.2 Ashok Patel.
Applicants Smt. Rekha and Priyanka (legal heirs of
appellant No.2 Ashok Patel) are permitted to incorporate
their names in place of appellant No.2 Ashok Patel in the
appeal memo. Necessary amendment be incorporated.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing,
therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the
copy of documents filed along with appeal memo to the
counsel for the respondents.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.28/2000
10.04.2017
Shri R.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on IA No.548/2017, which is an application
filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the
abatement and IA No.550/2017, which is an application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation
of delay in filing application under Order XXII Rule 3 of
CPC and IA No.551/2017, which is an application filed
under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for legal heirs of
appellant to be brought on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no
objection in allowing the applications. So, applications (IA
No.548/17, IA No.550/17 and IA No.551/17) are allowed
and abatement is setting aside and also delay in filing
application (IA No.551/17) is hereby condoned and legal
heir Baba Purnanand Mahant is permitted to be taken on
record in place of sole appellant Baba Raghunandan Das.
Applicant (legal heir Baba Purnanand Mahant) is
permitted to incorporate his name in place of appellant
Baba Raghunandan Das in the appeal memo. Necessary
amendment be incorporated.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing,
therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.615/2016
10.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri R.K.Pandagre, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that
there is possibility of settlement through mediation. So,
office is directed to appoint a Mediator and place the matter
before the Mediator on 23.05.2017.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the
Mediator on 23.05.2017. Parties are also directed to co-
operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.
Mediator is directed to submit the report after
mediation.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 along with
the Mediator's report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3375/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted
that the case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.21/2017
10.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of documents filed along with the petition to
the counsel for the respondent before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7208/2015
10.04.2017
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6,
even after service of notice.
Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within
seven days. On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue
notice to the respondent No.4, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3178/2015
10.04.2017
Shri N.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015
10.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1275/2016
10.04.2017
Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1628/2016
10.04.2017
Shri R.K.Pandagre, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Ms. Usha Chouhan, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2384/2016
10.04.2017
Shri Amber Pare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2016, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4083/2016
10.04.2017
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
file the reply.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7120/2016
10.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant again seeks time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.233/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Vinod Bhavsar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.295/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.392/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.415/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 2 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.420/2017
10.04.2017
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3347/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3735/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.151/2014
10.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3381/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1530/2015
10.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7703/2016
10.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9949/2016
10.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.39/2017
10.04.2017
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.472/2005
10.04.2017
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri M.M.Bohra, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.1132/2017, IA No.1137/2017
and IA No.8042/2016 to the counsel for the respondents.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1208/2009
10.04.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Dr. Anand Shrivastava - appellant present in
person.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant has already furnished the bail bond on
04.04.2017.
So, appellant is directed to remain present before
the Registry of this Court on 17.05.2017 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.1007/2010
10.04.2017
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.164/2012
10.04.2017
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 17.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.395/2014
10.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Report of perpetual warrant of applicant Manoj is
not received as yet.
Office is directed to issue fresh perpetual warrant to
secure presence of applicant Manoj as and when
apprehended and also issue notice to his surety as to why
surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1838/2014
10.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Production warrant of appellant Jitendra Mukhi is
received unserved.
Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to
procure the presence of appellant Jitendra Mukhi on
19.05.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why
surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 19.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1053/2013
10.04.2017
Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.473/2015
10.04.2017
Ms. Usha Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Verification report of factum of death of appellant
No.4 Premsingh is not received as yet.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for
four weeks time to verify the factum of death of appellant
No.4 Premsingh.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4040/2010
06.04.2017
Shri V.A.Katkani learned counsel for the
applicant.
None for the respondent.
This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the
Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in
Cr.R.No.13/2010 whereby, learned ASJ rejected the
applicant's Revision for enhancement of amount of interim
maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ratlam and sustained the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam in MJC No.15/09
whereby learned JMFC allowed the applicant's application
and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as
interim maintenance to the applicant.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to the
disposal of the petition are that applicant filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ratlam averting that she is a legally wedded wife
of the non-applicant and is unable to maintain herself, while
applicant is having agricultural land measuring 3.100 hectare
at Village Mundadi, Tehsil Ratlam And able to maintain her
but not maintaining her without any sufficient cause. So non-
applicant be directed to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance and
applicant also filed an application for directing non-applicant
to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance during
trial of the case.
Non-applicant opposed the prayer and submitted
that applicant is voluntarily living separately and is not
entitled to get any maintenance. He took a loan on
agricultural land and burden of repayment of that loan is on
him, so he is unable to give maintenance to the applicant.
Learned trial court allowed the applicant's prayer
and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as
interim maintenance to the applicant. Being aggrieved from
the amount awarded by the trial court applicant filed
Cr.R.No.13/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge for
enhancement of that amount and non-applicant also filed
Cr.R.No.383/09 for setting aside that order. Learned Special
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam disposed both the
Criminal Revisions by a common order dated 05.02.2010 and
rejected both the revisions. Being aggrieved from that order
applicant filed this petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant is a 60 years' old blind lady and not able to maintain
herself, while applicant is having 3.100 hectare agriculture
land at Village Mundadi, Tehsil Ratlam and earns Rs two
lakh from that land. Looking to the inflation, the amount that
will be given is very low. Learned trial court as well as
revisional court without giving attention to the fact and the
income of non-applicant wrongly awarded only Rs.1,200/- as
interim maintenance, so the amount be enhanced.
[4] None appeared from the non applicant
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.
[6] Learned trial court as well as revisional court
found that non-applicant has 13-14 Bigha agriculture land yet
awarded only Rs.1,200/- as interim maintenance to the
applicant, who is blind which is clearly on lower side
Looking to the inflation, so it is appropriate that the amount
of interim maintenance be enhanced from Rs.1,200/- to
Rs.4,000/- per month. So revision is allowed and it is directed
that non applicant shall pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the applicant from the date of order of this
court during trial of the case. It also appeared that the
maintenance application of applicant, who is blind was
pending since 2009, so trial court is also directed to dispose
of the application within six months.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.1515/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after
service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time
to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 01.05.2017, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA No.114/2017
07.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1487/2009
07.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.454/1997
07.04.2017
None present for the appellant, even after second
round.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant,
case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2532/2017
07.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3183/2017
07.04.2017
Shri D.M.Kirtane, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3543/2017
07.04.2017
Shri J.Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of documents to the respondent/State.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.234/2017
07.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.108/2014
07.04.2017
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 4 & 5.
None present for the respondent No.7, even after
service of notice.
Notice of respondent No.6 received unserved.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay
fresh process fee within 7 days along with correct address.
On payment of process fee within 7 days issue notice
to the respondent No.6, returnable within six weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.128/2008
07.04.2017
Shri Akram Khan, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
In pursuance of production warrant issued by this
court appellant Magan S/o Phoolsingh is produced from
Central Jail, Badwani. He be sent back to jail for undergoing
remaining part of sentence.
Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Badwani is directed
to produce the appellant Magan before the Registry on
15.05.2017 and on such further dates as may be fixed by the
Registry of this Court.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.904/2014
07.04.2017
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take
steps regarding respondent No.1 Jagdish.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.2279/2009
07.04.2017
Shri Atul Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This appeal is already admitted. So, let the matter be
listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.828/2013
07.04.2017
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State
Again issue bailable warrant of arrest for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to secure the presence of appellant Vaibhav
before this court 05.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 05.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.904/2014
07.04.2017
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take
steps regarding respondent No.1 Jagdish.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1306/2015
07.04.2017
Shri M.M.Bohra, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Govind Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to file the bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.,
Shajapur for appearance before this court on 05.05.2017 and
on further dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
Appeal is already admitted, so list for final hearing in
due course. Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1078/2014
07.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Service report of bailable warrant of appellant No.1
Rampratap is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report on 28.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.299/2017
07.04.2017
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MA No.502/2017
07.04.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Heard on IA No.1895/2017, an application under
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay.
Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the
next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded
amount within one month.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MA No.508/2017
07.04.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Heard on IA No.1907/2017, an application under
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay.
Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the
next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded
amount within one month.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MA No.504/2017
07.04.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Heard on IA No.1902/2017, an application under
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay.
Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the
next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded
amount within one month.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1704/2015
07.04.2017
Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Y.C.Markan, learned counsel for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Shri A.Kesharwani, learned counsel for respondent
No.4.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.719/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
Report of the mediator is received. Mediation is not
successful.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Both parties are directed to remain present before this
court on 26.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.842/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Shantanu Naik, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1053/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6110/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Jagdish Baheti, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Respondent Smt. Amita Brahmo is present in person.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 15.05.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7723/2016
07.04.2017
Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.126/2017
07.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9022/2016
07.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed 25.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.205/2017
07.04.2017
Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.308/2017
07.04.2017
Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.388/2017
07.04.2017
Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.792/2016
04.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant Chandar Singh.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhar in S.T.No.373/15 whereby; he framed charge
against applicant for the offences under Sections 115 and
120B of IPC.
[2] According to prosecution story, present
applicant (Chander Singh Dangi) contracted with Arjun
for killing complainant Hardev Singh Jaat. So on
24/08/2115 Mayank, Arjun, Amit, Mohit and Vinkesh
came on a motorcycle to Ghatabillod for murdering
complainant. At that time, co-accused Mohit had a
country made pistol and wanted to fire on complainant
but was unable to fire due to crowd. On 25.08.2015, in
the evening Mayank narrated the incident to complainant
Hardev Singh Jaat on which Hardev Singh Jaat lodged a
written report at Police Chowki Ghatabillod. On that
report Crime No.403/2015 was registered at Police
Station Pithampur for the offence under Section 115, 120-
B of IPC against applicants Chander Singh, and co
accused Mayank, Arjun, Amit, Mohit and Vikensh.
During investigation Police seized one country made
pistol from the possession of co-accused Mohit, mobile
from, co-accused Arjun, one mobile and a motorcycle
bearing registration No.MP09-QD-5100 from the
possession of co-accused Vinkesh @ Mama, one
motorcycle bearing registration No.MP09-NT-6754 and
mobile from the possession of Mayank and also one
mobile phone from the possession of Amit and after
completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against
the applicant and other co accused. On that charge sheet
ST No.373/2015 was registered. During trial of the case
by order dated 29.04.2016 learned A.S.J., Dhar framed
charges against the applicants for the offence under
Sections 115 and 120-B of IPC. Being aggrieved from
that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant
that he had entered into conspiracy with other co-accused
persons. also there is no evidence against co-accused
Mayank, Arjun, Amit, Mohit and Vinkesh regarding an
attempt to cause any injury to complainant. It shows that
the Police has falsely implicated the present applicant in
the case. There is no evidence that applicant committed
any offence against the complainant Hardev Singh Jaat.
Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge
against the applicant for the offence under Section 115
and 120-B of IPC.
[4] Learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer and submitted that there is ample evidence on
record to frame charge against the applicant. So learned
trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charge
against the applicant for the offence under Section 115
and 120-B of the IPC.
[5] We have gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties.
[6] As regards scope of Sections 227 and 228 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, Apex court in his
judgement Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I (2010) 9 SCC 368.
observed as thus:- On consideration of the authorities
about the scope of sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not
a prima facie case against the accused has
been made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts of
each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained, the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post
Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution
but has to consider the broad probabilities of
the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the Court,
any basic infirmities etc. However, at this
stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into
the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on
record, the Court could form an opinion that
the accused might have committed offence, it
can frame the charge, though for conviction
the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges,
the probative value of the material on record
cannot be gone into but before framing a
charge the Court must apply its judicial mind
on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by
the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of sections 227 and 228,
the Court is required to evaluate the material
and documents on record with a view to find
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value discloses the existence of all
the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at that
initial stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.
[7] If the the evidence collected by the
prosecution against applicant is analysed in the light of
above principles laid down by the Apex Court the only
allegation against the applicant is that he entered into a
conspiracy with other co-accused Mayank, Arjun,
Vinkesh @ Mama, Amit and Mohit for murdering Hardev
Singh Jaat and applicant instigated co-accused Mayank,
Arjun, Vinkesh @ Mama, Amit and Mohit For this and
also gave proposal of Rs.5,00,000/- for murdering Hardev
Singh Jaat but there is no substantive evidence on record
to frame charge against applicant in this regard.
[8] Although in the written report lodged by
Hardev Singh Jaat and the case diary statement of
complainant Hardev and Purshotam it is mentioned that
applicant instigated co-accused Mayank, Arjun, Vinkesh
@ Mama, Amit and Mohit for murdering Hardev Singh
Jaat and gave proposal of giving Rs.5,00,000/- for
murdering Hardev Singh Jaat, but report lodged by the
complainant Hardev and case diary statement given by
complainant Hardev and Purshtomon is based only on the
information given to them by co accused Mayank.
[9] While Mayank is not a prosecution witness in
the case. Police also did not make approver to Mayank.
Although police also recorded the statement of Other
witnesses Sumer Singh and Dhiraj Rathore who are the
witness of recovery of pistol from the possession of other
co-accused Mohit not against applicant. There is no other
witness of the alleged incident. Although Police also filed
list of mobile call details, regarding conversation between
co-accused on mobile phone at relevant time but the
mobile call details only shows that on the date of incident
co-accused talked with each other but only on the basis it
can not be inferred that applicant hatched conspiracy with
other co-accused for murdering Hardev Singh Jaat.
[10] So the only evidence, which was collected by
the police against the applicant, is the extra-judicial
confession alleged to have been made by co-accused
Mayank.
[11] It is trite law that a confession made by a co-
accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. There is a
marked difference between the probative value of the
confession of an accused vis-à-vis the confession of a co-
accused .The confession made by an accused, if found
voluntary and true, can be made basis for his own
conviction. The confession of a co-accused is no evidence
at all and it cannot be used as a foundation for conviction
of the accused, who is not maker thereof, though the same
can, indeed, be used as a supporting piece of evidence
against the accused, who is not the maker thereof.
[12] A reference, in this regard, may be made to
Kashmira Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1952 SC 159, wherein the Supreme Court observed
as follows:
"The confession of an accused person is not
evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as
defined in Section 8. It cannot be made the
foundation of a conviction and can only be
used in support of other evidence. The
proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence
against the accused excluding the confession
altogether from consideration and see
whether, if it is believed a conviction could
safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief
independently of the confession, then, of
course it is not necessary to call the
confession in aid. But cases may arise, where
the Judge is not prepared to act on the other
evidence as it stands even though, if
believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a
conviction. In such an event, the Judge may
call in aid the confession and use it to lend
assurance to the other evidence and, thus,
fortify himself in believing what without the
aid of the confession he would not be
prepared to accept."
[13] Apex Court in Hari Charan Kurmi and
Jogia Hajam V/s. State Of Bihar reported in 1964 AIR
1184 also held that,
"though a confession mentioned in Section
30 of the Indian Evidence Act is not
evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act,
it is an element which may be taken into
consideration by the criminal courts and in
that sense, it may be described as evidence
in a non-technical way. But in dealing with
a case against an accused person, the court
cannot start with the confession of a co-
accused person, it must begin with other
evidence adduced by the prosecution and
after it has formed its opinion ,with regard
to the quality and effect of the said
evidence, then it is permissible to turn
to the confession in order to lend assurance
to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial
mind is about to reach on the said other
evidence."
[14] Which shows that the confession of the co-
accused can be used as a supporting piece of evidence for
lending assurance to the other evidence on record and it
can also be used in order to fortify the Court in believing
that the conclusion that it had reached on the basis of
other evidence that the accused is guilty is correct.
[15] While In the present case if the evidence of
the confession of the co-accused, namely, Mayank, is
kept excluded from the purview of this Court's
consideration, there is no other evidence, either direct or
circumstantial, showing, far less proving, applicant's
involvement in the said crime.
[16] So there is no substantial piece of evidence on
record to frame the charge against applicant. In absence
of other evidence only on the basis of extra judicial
confession of co accused Mayank which is only a
Corroborative piece of evidence against applicant and
alone can not be made basis of conviction, charge can not
be framed against applicant for the offence offences
under section 115 and 120-B of IPC. learned trial court
committed mistake in framing charge against accused for
the offences under section 115 and 120-B of IPC.
[17] Hence, the revision is allowed and applicant is
discharged for the charges under section 115 and 120-B
of IPC.
The Revision is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.381/2009
06.04.2017
Shri Yogesh Markan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 & 2.
Heard on IA No.1745/2017, which is an application
to serve notice to the respondents No.3 to 6 through paper
publication.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
service of notice on respondents No.3 to 6 has not been
effected by ordinary process. Respondents No.3 to 6 are
avoiding the service of notice so as to delay the case. So,
notice be issued on respondents No.3 to 6 by way of
publication through local news paper.
After due consideration, application is allowed.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice
to respondents No.3 to 6 by way of publication in the local
newspaper circulated in the local area in Indore where
respondents No.3 to 6 are said to be resided.
Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in
due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.764/2009
06.04.2017
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Heard on IA No.1861,2017, which is an application
under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC.
Application IA No.1861/2017 shall be considered at
the time of final hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 seeks time
to file the reply of IA No.5645/2009.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.91/2017
06.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the reply.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.44/2017
06.04.2017
None for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Jadav, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1140/2012
06.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri M.D.Patil, learned counsel for the surety.
Learned counsel for the surety seeks time to file the
reply of notice.
Prayer is allowed.
Service report of appellant is not received as yet.
Let the matter be listed on 17.05.2017 along with
the service report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1802/2013
06.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure
presence of appellant No.1 Bharat @ Bharatsingh before this
court on 12.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 12.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.442/2015
06.04.2017
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Zafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.3509/2007
06.04.2017
Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the
connected matter M.A.No.141/08 be listed along with this
matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed along with M.A. No.141/08
in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.447/2016
06.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Report of bailable warrant issued against applicant
Nana @ Dilip is not received as yet.
Office is directed to list the matter along with
service report of bailable warrant on 05.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.112/2017
06.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicants/State.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1236/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.79/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2781/2017
06.04.2017
Shri Zafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1092/2015
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.159/2011
06.04.2017
None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, matter
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9433/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
None present for the respondent No.1, even after
service of notice.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.128/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7418/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.226/2012
06.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
None present for the surety.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Issue fresh perpetual warrant of arrest against
appellant Dharmendra @ Pappu.
In absence of learned counsel for the surety matter
is adjourned.
Surety is directed to file the reply on the next date
of hearing positively.
Let the matter be listed on 19.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.326/2005
06.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
None present for the respondent No.1.
Heard on IA No.1120/2017, which is an application
filed under Order XXII Rules 3 & 4 read with Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC for legal heirs of appellant to be brought
on record.
Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the appellant
submitted that sole appellant is expired on 18.11.2016 and
applicants Smt. Shobha, Mayur, Smt. Megha and Smt.
Prerna are legal heirs of the sole appellant Chandrakant
Vyas. So they be taken on record in place of appellant.
Application (IA No.1120/2017) is allowed and the
applicants are permitted to incorporate their names in place
of appellant Chandrakant Vyas in the appeal memo.
Necessary amendment be incorporated.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing,
therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.25/2009
06.04.2017
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.1364/2017 to the counsel for the
appellant.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.11/2017
06.04.2017
Ms. Gunaj Choukse, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondents even after service
of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents,
case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.2083/2016
06.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
None present for the respondent No.1.
Shri Akash Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.4/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.36/2016
06.04.2017
Shri B.L.Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Shailley Khatri, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondents No.3, 4, 6 to 12 and 15 to 22.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they
want to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the
issues which are raised in this petition before the trial court at
the appropriate stage.
Prayer is allowed.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1606/2016
06.04.2017
Shri D.C.Kasniya, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent.
Applicant Mohd. Hanif and Respondent Smt. Hiba
Khan are present in person. They have filed IA
No.2771/2017, an application for compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both
the parties have settled their matter amicably and are living
together for last two months.
Let the matter be sent to the Principal Registrar for
verification of the factum of compromise between the parties.
Principal Registrar is directed to place the matter
with his report before the Court after verification of factum of
compromise between the parties.
Parties are directed to appear today before the
Principal Registrar of this Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9314/2015
03.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after
service of notice.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Criminal Case
No.15718/12 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Indore.
[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this
petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint
before the trial court averring that non-applicant sold soya oil
to applicant worth Rs.20,00,000/- on credit and thereafter an
agreement relating to assignment of debt was executed on
03.07.2008 between the applicant and non-applicant whereby
it was agreed that the debt due for Rs.9,10,930/- towards non-
applicant shall stand transferred to Jayanta Bhattacharya, who
was in debt towards applicant for amount of Rs.19,38,187.77
and Jayanta Bhattacharya shall be liable to pay the debt
directly to non-applicant and the 50% of excess amount of
outstanding dues i.e. Rs.9,10,930/- shall be repaid by non-
applilcant to the authorized representative of applicant.
Jayanta Bhattacharya was immediately informed on
03.07.2008 regarding execution such agreement and
compliance of the same by applicant as well as non-applicant.
In compliance of that agreement Jayanta Bhattacharya issued
cheque in favour of the non-applicant for the amount of
Rs.19,38,000/- bearing cheque No.937521 dated 16.07.2008,
however, the said cheque was dishonored and Jayanta
Bhattacharya have refused to give money to the non-applicant
on the ground that a money receipt dated 20.05.2009 was
given by the applicant to Jayanta Bhattacharya to the effect
that the applicant has received amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from
Jayanta Bhattacharya and the same is transferred to J.K.
Chemicals, Indore on behalf of Chaitanya Agro Products with
full and final settlement and applicant committed cheating
with non-applicant so cognizance be taken against applicant
and Jayanta Bhattacharya. Learned trial court by order dated
09.07.2012 took cognizance only against applicant for the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Being aggrieved with
that order applicant filed this petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the debt due on applicant to non-applicant was legally
transferred as per Section 130, 132 of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 by execution of agreement/MOU in consonance,
concurrence and knowledge of the non-applicant and the said
document is completely valid as per law and even not
questioned by the non-applicant and, therefore, after
execution of such agreement and as per law applicant cannot
be held liable to pay such debt to the non-applicant and the
non-applicant has to avail all remedies under law only against
assignee of the debt and not against the applicant. Non-
applicant also filed complaint against Jayanta Bhattacharya
for dishonoring of the cheque. It is not the case of the
complainant that the representations made by applicant in the
agreement i.e. Jayanta Bhattacharya owes debt to applicant
worth Rs.19,38,187.77 is false and, therefore, the applicant
cannot be said to have committed the offence of cheating as
the agreement was good in law without any
misrepresentations. The non-applicant has not alleged in the
complaint that the applicant had the dishonest intention of
cheating right from inception whereas the basis of complaint
is the averment made in Para 9 of complaint which contains
the narration that Jayanta Bhattacharya has alleged that the
applicant has committed offence of cheating but this cannot
be made basis of implication of applicant without any actual
overt act. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case. There is no legal evidence to connect
the applicant with the aforementioned crime. The trial court
without any application of mind rightly took cognizance
against the applicant.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.170/2016
04.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file
appropriate application regarding respondent No.6(c)
Ramkishan.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.990/2016
04.04.2017
Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
on IA No.8531/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.159/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Kashiram Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3499/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Sandeep Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3535/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to verify the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
produce the copy of ordersheet of Criminal Case
No.6778/2016.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.967/2016
04.04.2017
Shri K.L.Hardia, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondent No.1 even after
service of notice.
Service report of respondent No.2 is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.295/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Sanjay sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he
has filed order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned trial
court.
Office is directed to verify.
Registry is also directed to place the matter before
the appropriate Bench on 06.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.347/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks'
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2882/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3049/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Piyush Bhahmbhatt, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3378/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two
weeks' time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3406/2017
04.04.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two
weeks' time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9449/2016
04.04.2017
Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.908/2014
04.04.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given. It is also
made clear that no stay shall be granted by the court. Trial
court is free to proceed in the case.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1046/2015
04.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.108/2015
04.04.2017
None present for the applicant even after second
round.
On 20.03.2017, none present for the applicant and
today also none present for the applicant. It shows that
applicant is not interested in prosecuting the petition,
therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1057/2014
03.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent.
Office is directed to immediately send back the
record to the trial court.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
It is made clear that no stay granted by this court
regarding trial of Case No.8/2014. Trial Court is free to
proceed further. Only impugned order dated 08.08.2014 is
stayed by the court.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.357/2015
03.04.2017
Shri Imran Bangash Khan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.2519/2017, which an application
for extension of time for furnishing bail bond in pursuance
of order dated 01.04.2015.
On due consideration (application IA
No.2519/2017) is allowed. Applicant is granted 30 days
time for furnishing bail bond.
Applicant is directed to remain present before the
Registry of this Court on 08.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.112/2015
03.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
respondent Rakesh is died.
Office is directed to call for the verification report
regarding factum of death of respondent Rakesh from S.H.O.,
Nagda, District Ujjain.
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.525/2014
03.04.2017
Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.2387/2017, which an application
for permitting applicant to appear before the trial court
instead of Registry.
After due consideration, application (IA
No.2387/2017) is allowed. Applicant Vikram Singh is
permitted to appear before the trial court on 19.05.2017 and
on such further dates as may be given by the trial court.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.971/2012
03.04.2017
Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the surety.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State
Learned counsel for surety submitted that surety has
already deposited amount of surety bond on 23.03.2017.
Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure the
presence of appellant Natthu @ Natthuram @ Natthulal.
Let the matter be listed on 16.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.78/2013
03.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.4/State
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 seeks
time to produce respondent No.3 Mukesh before this court
and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 21.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.321/2014
03.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three days'
time to produce respondent No.7 Sodan Singh before this
court and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.148/2014
03.04.2017
Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the
appellant.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, o ffice is
directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of
appellant Hussain Khan @ Ajhar before this court on
16.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 16.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.466/2014
03.04.2017
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, o ffice is
directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of
respondent No.3 Hariram before this court on 17.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 17.05.2017 along with
service report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1924/2014
03.04.2017
Shri Bharat Malviya, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant No.2 Rameshwar is present in person
before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2476/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant No.2 Rameshwar on
22.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant No.2 Rameshwar on 22.03.2017 is
hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 21.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.32/2015
03.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
produce appellant Surendra Singh before this court and wants
a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.64/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.
Service report of bailable warrant issued against
respondent No.2 Rakesh is not received as yet.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, o ffice is
directed to again issue bailable warrant of arrest of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure
presence of respondent No.2 Rakesh before this court on
09.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 09.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.108/2016
03.04.2017
Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice issued to respondents is
received back with the report that the given address is
incomplete.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh
process fee with correct address within two weeks.
On payment of fresh process fee with correct
address issue notice to the respondents within 7 days,
returnable within 6 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.150/2016
03.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks two weeks'
time to file reply of IA No.7427/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.314/2016
03.04.2017
Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant No.2 Shubhash S/o Mayaram is not
present even after service of bailable warrant.
Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to
procure his presence before this court on 16.05.2017 and
also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may
not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 16.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.194/2016
03.04.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1003/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Ranu Dubey, applicant No.1 is present in person
along with counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
matter is amicably settled between both the parties, therefore,
applicant does not want to press this Revision.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.645/2016
03.04.2017
Shri M.R.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant Ghanshyam is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2466/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Ghanshyam on
24.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of applicant Ghanshyam on 24.03.2017 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 17.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9509/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two
weeks' time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11237/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5594/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 21.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13058/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.116/2017
03.04.2017
None present for the appellant.
Appellant is in jail.
Office is directed to engage another counsel for the
appellant through legal aid.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7108/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in motion
stage with the consent of both the parties on 17.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9689/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10146/2016
03.04.2017
Ms. Kriti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 18.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11304/2016
03.04.2017
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 24.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11510/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13048/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this petition with the liberty that grounds raised in
this petition may be raised before the trial court.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Kartik Mandloi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
some documents in support of his petition.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.18/2017
03.04.2017
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Office is directed to send back the record to the trial
court. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the
whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1634/2016
03.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Davve, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Let the matter be listed before the appropriate
Bench, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.72/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue on admission.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1434/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
because learned trial court dispose of Criminal Case
No.2097/2015 against which he filed this petition, so petition
is rendered infructuous, therefore, he wants to withdraw the
petition.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as rendered
infructuous.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.134/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.161/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.173/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Kratik Mandloi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.231/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Notice of respondent not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.519/2017
03.04.2017
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.693/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.849/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017
03.04.2017
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1605/2017
03.04.2017
Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Issue notice to the respondents No.2 & 3 on
payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4
weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2112/2017
03.04.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
the case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce case diary positively before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2163/2017
03.04.2017
Shri R.K.Gondale, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2334/2017
03.04.2017
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Record is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2967/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Kamal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2804/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4278/2016
03.04.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce status report of confiscation proceedings.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2532/2017
03.04.2017
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015
28.03.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for directing respondents No.1 to 3
for registering FIR against respondents No.4 & 5.
[2] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant is a company and involved in production of Soybean
product like DOC etc. and also having solvent extraction plant at
Mahidpur Road, Village Champla Khedi, District Ratlam.
Applicant company and respondents No.4 and 5 took over Marvel
Agrex Limited Company as per memorandum of understanding
on 26.12.2006. The applicant company supplied Indian Solvent
Extracted Toasted Yellow Soyabean Meal to M/s. Bishan Saroop
Ramkrishna Agro Private Ltd. in lieu of payment of that goods M/
s. Bishan Saroop Ramkrishna Agro Private Ltd. gave three
Demand Draft worth Ro.90.00 Lacs each and One D.D worth of
Rs.30 Lacs. That draft was received by non applicant No.3 and 4
on behalf of applicant company. After receiving that Demand
Draft non applicant No.4 and 5 informed the applicant company
that they had deposited that Demand Draft in the account of
company and a copy of deposit receipt was also provided to
applicant by the non applicant No.4.
[3] After some time applicant came to know that non
applicant no. 4 and 5 opened an account in Bank of India and on
forged documents and illegally misappropriated Rs.3 Crores
belonging to petitioner company and committed offence under
section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. On that applicant
company lodged a report against respondents No.4 & 5 but Police
is not registering FIR against respondents No.4 and 5 and not
taking action against them with an ulterior and mala fide motive
while said offences are cognizable offence. So respondents No.1
to 3 be directed to register FIR against respondents No.4 and 5 on
applicant's complaint.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and submitted that police had enquired the matter
regarding which a civil suit also pending in the Court of District
Judge Indore between both the parties. So, FIR was not registered.
If applicant is aggrieved, he is free to file private complaint before
the competent court and pray for rejection.
[5] This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. Applicant filed this
petition for issuing direction to respondents No.1 to 3 for
registering FIR against respondents No.4 and 5 on the complaint
filed by the petitioner before the police.
[6] This Court had gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties, according to provisions of
section 154 to 156 Cr.P.C. where a person has approached the
Police Station under Section 154 of the Code, but the Police does
not register FIR as contemplated under law, he has a right to make
a complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned in terms of
Section 154(3) of the Code and such Superintendent of Police
concerned exercising the powers of an officer in charge of a
police station would investigate the matter himself or direct the
investigation to be conducted by another police officer
subordinate to him. If there is inaction on the part of the Station
House Officer and the Superintendent of Police, the complainant
is at liberty to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.
[7] While dealing with the exercise of power under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Lalita Kumari V/s. State of U.P. & Others
reported in 2014(2) SCC 1, held that,
"The registration of First
Information Report is mandatory in
Cognizable offences and action will be
taken against the police officer for his
failure to register a First Information
Report on the complaint of a cognizable
offence.
If action is not taken by the
superior officer under Section 154 (3) of
the Code, then any person has a right to
invoke the power of the court under
Section 156(3) of the Code. The
Legislature provides a specific protection
in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code
and gives right to a person to approach
the court of competent jurisdiction for
issuance of direction to the police officer
to investigate the matter in accordance
with law."
[8] The Bombay High Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra V/s. Shashikant Shinde reported in 2013 All MR
(Cri) 3060, held that,
"when a petition or complaint is
presented before the Magistrate, in which
a request is made for taking action as
mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Code,
the Magistrate is expected to apply his
mind. The Magistrate has to ascertain as
to whether the contentions made in the
petition /complaint constitute any
offence. If they constitute some offence
then the Magistrate is expected to take
decision as to whether the matter needs
to be referred to police for investigation
as provided in section 156(3) of the Code
or he needs to proceed further as
provided in Section 200 and subsequent
Sections of Chapter XV of the Code.
There is a discretion with the Magistrate
in this regard. Though police officer is
duty bound to register case on receiving
information of cognizable offence, the
Magistrate is not bound to refer the
matter to police under section 156(3) of
the Code."
And a Three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in
Ramdev Food Products(P) Ltd. V/s. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6
SCC 439 has held that,
"the direction under Section 156(3) is to
be issued, only after application of mind
by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate
does not take cognizance and does not
find it necessary to postpone instance of
process and finds a case made out to
proceed forthwith, direction under the
said provision is issued. In other words,
where on account of credibility of
information available, or weighing the
interest of justice it is considered
appropriate to straightaway direct
investigation, such a direction is issued.
Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance
and postpones issuance of process are
cases where the Magistrate has yet to
determine "existence of sufficient ground
to proceed".
[9] Apex court also in Priyanka Srivastava Vs State of
U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, held as follows;
"In our considered opinion, a stage has
come in this country where Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be
supported by an affidavit duly sworn by
the applicant who seeks the invocation of
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That
apart, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to
verify the truth and also can verify the
veracity of the allegations."
[10] Regarding maintainability of petition directly in the
High Court for registering the FIR Hon'ble Apex Court in his
judgment passed in Sakiri Vasu V/s. State of U.P. & others
reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 clearly observed that :-
"If a person has a grievance that
his FIR has not been registered by the
police station his first remedy is to
approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other
police officer referred to in Section 36
Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the
Superintendent of Police or the officer
referred to in Section 36 his grievance
still persists, then he can approach a
Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High
Court by way of a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, he has a further remedy of
filing a criminal complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should
writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be
entertained when there are so many
alternative remedies?
As we have already observed
above, the Magistrate has very wide
powers to direct registration of an FIR
and to ensure a proper investigation and
for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the
investigation is done properly (though he
cannot investigate himself). The High
Court should discourage the practice of
filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a
person has a grievance that his FIR has
not been registered by the police, or after
being registered, proper investigation has
not been done by the police. For this
grievance, the remedy lies under Sections
36 and 154 (3) before the police officers
concerned, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
Magistrate or by filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
not by filing a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is true that alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but
it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should
not ordinarily interfere."
[11] The same view has been reiterated by the apex court
in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe V/s. Hemant Yashwant Dhage
and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 observing in paras 2 and 3, as
follows:-
"This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v.
State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409 that if a
person has a grievance that his FIR has
not been registered by the police, or
having been registered, proper
investigation is not being done, then the
remedy of the aggrieved person is not to
go to the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, but to approach
the Magistrate concerned under Section
156(3) CrPC. If such an application under
Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he
can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it
has already been registered, he can direct
proper investigation to be done which
includes in his discretion, if he deems it
necessary, recommending change of the
investigating officer, so that a proper
investigation is done in the matter. We
have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because
what we have found in this country is that
the High Courts have been flooded with
writ petitions praying for registration of
the first information report or praying for
a proper investigation." "3. We are of the
opinion that if the High Courts entertain
such writ petitions, then they will be
flooded with such writ petitions and will
not be able to do any other work except
dealing with such writ petitions. Hence,
we have held that the complainant must
avail of his alternate remedy to approach
the Magistrate concerned under Section
156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the
Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he
is satisfied, registration of the first
information report and also ensure a
proper investigation in the matter, and he
can also monitor the investigation."
[12] So in the light of above pronouncements it emerges
that if there is inaction on the part of the Station House Officer
and the Superintendent of Police, the complainant is at liberty to
move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(not directly in the High court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.) The
complaint shall be accompanied by an affidavit as mandated by
the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). On receipt of
the complaint, the Magistrate shall pass orders thereon, either
issuing directions or dismissing the petition.
[13] So petition is rejected with a direction that if police is
not registering FIR on the complaint of petitioner, he will be free
to avail alternative remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgments. Petition
is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.827/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Office is also directed to call for the status report of
M.Cr.C.No.33/2015 pending before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Neemuch.
Let the matter be listed along with the status report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.306/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.562/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCrC No.5644/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCrC No.11650/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCrC No.11943/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.477/2017
31.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service
of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.180/2014
31.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
None present for the respondents No.1 and 2, even
after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCC No.528/2012
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.104/2016
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C. No.68/2017
31.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Let the matter be listed in the next week along
with service report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.550/2004
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.333/2001
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.105/2003
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
31.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015
28.03.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing respondents
No.1 to 3 for registering FIR against respondents No.4 & 5.
[2] Brief facts of the case are that applicant lodged
report against respondents No.2 & 3 at P.S. Bhanwarkuwa,
Indore averring that applicant is a company and involved in
production of Soyabean product like DOC etc. and also
having solvent extraction plant at Mahidpur Road, Village
Champla Khedi, District Ratlam. Applicant company and
respondents No.4 and 5 took over Marvel Agrex Limited
Company as per memorandum of understanding on
26.12.2006. Applicant company was having an account
bearing No.880720110000040 with Bank of India,
Sanyogitaganj Branch, Indore, which was closed vide letter
dated 20.11.2007. The applicant company obtained term loan
of Rupees Nine Crores and working capital of Rupees Ten
Crores from Punjab National Bank, Manorama Ganj Branch,
Indore.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
company lodged a report against respondents No.4 & 5 for
the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of
IPC regarding misappropriation of Rupees Three Crores by
forged documents and forged payslip but Police with an
ulterior and mala fide motive has not recorded FIR against
respondents No.4 and 5 and not taking action against them,
so respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to lodge FIR against
respondents No.4 and 5.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that petition is not maintainable and
also submitted that respondents No.1 to 3 are not bound to
register FIR from the complaint of applicant. If applicant is
aggrieved, he is free to file private complaint before the
competent court and pray for rejection.
04. According to provisions of section 154 to 156 Cr.P.C.
Where a person has approached the police station under
Section 154 of the Code, but the police does not register FIR
as contemplated under law, he has a right to make a
complaint to the higher authorities in terms of Section 154(3)
of the Code and such higher authority exercising the powers
of an officer in charge of a police station would investigate
the matter himself or direct the investigation to be conducted
by another police officer subordinate to him.
[5] Applicant filed this petition for issuing direction
to respondents No.1 to 3 for registering FIR against
respondents No.4 and 5 on the complaint filed by the
petitioner before the police.
[6] Hon'ble Apex Court in his judgment passed in
Sakiri Vasu V/s. State of U.P. & others reported in (2008) 2
SCC 409 clearly observed that :-
"If a person has a grievance that
his FIR has not been registered by the
police station his first remedy is to
approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other
police officer referred to in Section 36
Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the
Superintendent of Police or the officer
referred to in Section 36 his grievance
still persists, then he can approach a
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
instead of rushing to the High Court by
way of a writ petition or a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a
further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Why then should writ petitions or Section
482 petitions be entertained when there
are so many alternative remedies?
As we have already observed
above, the Magistrate has very wide
powers to direct registration of an FIR
and to ensure a proper investigation and
for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the
investigation is done properly (though he
cannot investigate himself). The High
Court should discourage the practice of
filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a
person has a grievance that his FIR has
not been registered by the police, or after
being registered, proper investigation has
not been done by the police. For this
grievance, the remedy lies under Sections
36 and 154 (3) before the police officers
concerned, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
Magistrate or by filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
not by filing a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is true that alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but
it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should
not ordinarily interfere."
[7] The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Shashikant Shinde
reported in 2013 All MR (Cri) 3060, held that,
"when a petition or complaint is
presented before the Magistrate, in which a
request is made for taking action as
mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Code, the
Magistrate is expected to apply his mind.
The Magistrate has to ascertain as to whether
the contentions made in the petition
5/complaint constitute any offence. If they
constitute some offence then the Magistrate
is expected to take decision as to whether the
matter needs to be referred to police for
investigation as provided in section 156(3)
of the Code or he needs to proceed further as
provided in Section 200 and subsequent
Sections of Chapter XV of the Code. There
is a discretion with the Magistrate in this
regard. Though police officer is duty bound
to register case on receiving information of
cognizable offence, the Magistrate is not
bound to refer the matter to police under
section 156(3) of the Code."
[8] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hemant Yashwant
Dhage V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in ..............
also held that,
"We are of the opinion that if the
High Courts entertain such writ petitions,
then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other
work except dealing with such writ petitions,
then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other
work except dealing with such writ petitions.
Hence, we have held that the complainant
must avail of his alternative remedy to
approach the concerned Magistrate under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so,
the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he
is satisfied, registration of the first
information report and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also
monitor the investigation."
[9] The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
Lalita Kumari V/s. State of U.P. & Others reported in
2014(2) SCC 1, held that,
"The registration of First Information
Report is mandatory in Cognizable offences
and action will be taken against the police
officer for his failure to register a First
Information Report on the complaint of a
cognizable offence.
If action is not taken by the superior
officer under Section 154 (3) of the Code,
then any person has a right to invoke the
power of the court under Section 156(3) of
the Code. The Legislature provides a
specific protection in terms of Section
156(3) of the Code and gives right to a
person to approach the court of competent
jurisdiction for issuance of direction to the
police officer to investigate the matter in
accordance with law."
[10] So petition is rejected with a directed that if
police not registered FIR on the complaint of petitioner, he
will be free to avail alternative remedy to approach the
concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.217/2016
30.03.2017
Shri A.P.Polekar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.185/2017
30.03.2017
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7043/2016
30.03.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.485/2013
30.03.2017
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Kailash Kaushal, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday. Meanwhile, I.R. to continue till the next date
of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.627/2016
30.03.2017
Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.442/2015
30.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 06.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1204/2015
30.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
None present for the surety even after service of
notice.
In pursuance of non-bailable warrant issued by this
court to procure his presence presence before this court on
30.03.2017, applicant Chakrawarti Swami is produced in
custody. He be sent to jail for undergoing remaining part of
sentence.
This appeal is already admitted, so, list the appeal for
final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.401/2015
30.03.2017
Shri A.Siddique, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Applicant Firoz Khan is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2618/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Firoz Khan on
20.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of applicant Firoz Khan on 20.03.2017 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 17.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1222/2015
30.03.2017
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.421/2016
30.03.2017
None present for the parties.
None present for the surety even after service of
notice.
In absence of parties case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016
30.03.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the
intervener.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.593/2013
30.03.2017
Shri Manish Sankhla, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
report in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1274/2010
30.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5849/2010
30.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.172/2015
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.1124/17, which is an application
filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for bringing LRs of
sole appellant Ambalal on record and IA No.1125/17,
which is an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC
for setting aside the abatement of this appeal and IA
No.1126/17, which is an application filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing
application.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
appellants are the legal heir of appellant Ambalal, who died
on 30.07.2016. Because appellants did not know regarding
pendency of this Civil Suit, so they could not file
application for bringing them on record in time. Delay is
bona fide, so delay caused in filing application under Order
XXII Rule 3 of CPC be condoned and abatement be also
set aside and appellants be taken on record in place of
appellant Ambalal.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
prayer and submitted that the cause shown by the
appellants for not filing application within time is not
correct, so application be rejected.
It is clearly mentioned that because they did not
know regarding pendency of this Civil Appeal, so they
could not file the application for bringing them on record in
time. Appellant Basantilal also filed an affidavit in support
of his application, wherein he had clearly mentioned that
on 13.01.2017 he came to know for the first time that
appeal is also pending in the High Court. Respondents did
not file any written affidavit. There is no reason to
disbelieve his statement. Looking to the reasons assigned
by the appellants in the applications, applications (IA
No.1124/2017, IA No.1125/2017 & IA No.1126/2017) are
allowed and the appellants are permitted to incorporate
their names in place of appellant Ambalal in the appeal
memo. Necessary amendment be incorporated within 15
days.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing,
therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
Office is directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10504/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Rakesh Solanki, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Counsel has already paid process fee on 30.01.17,
therefore, delay in filing process fee is hereby condoned.
Office is directed to issue notice to the respondents
within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.552/2017
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.2437/2017, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5
of the Limitation Act.
The appeal is barred by 210 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant is in jail, so he could not file the appeal within time
limit.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
application (IA No.2437/2017) is allowed and the delay in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for final
hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8217/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to
supply the copy of IA No.7443/16 to the respondent before
the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9221/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.949/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Shivdutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 2 & 5.
None present for the respondents No.3,4,6 & 7, even
after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 & 5
seeks time to file reply of IA No.7752/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.799/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Office is directed to place the report on IA
No.1545/2017.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1133/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of bailable warrant issued against
respondent Ajay Kumar is still awaited.
Let the matter be listed along with the service report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1650/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2386/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3228/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to
cure the defects as pointed out by the office within two
weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4755/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to
cure the defects as pointed out by the office within two
weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8073/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9755/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10714/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As per office report, trial court record is not received
as yet.
Office is directed to call for the record positively
before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.46/2017
28.03.2017
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office within two weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1850/2014
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
produce appellant Laxman before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 11.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.325/2017
28.03.2017
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office within two weeks.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1674/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.193/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one week's
time to file some documents in support of his petition.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.15/2017
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.35/2017
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after three week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11979/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Anopam Chauhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce status report of confiscation proceedings pending
before the Collector, Dhar.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.306/2017
28.03.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2662/2017
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2695/2017
30.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As per office report, trial court record is not received
as yet.
Office is directed to call for the record positively
before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2736/2017
28.03.2017
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2950/2017
28.03.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and wants time to file copy of
some ordersheets.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.908/2014
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call the status report of
Criminal Case No.1265/2012 pending before the 3rd A.S.J.,
Indore.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.909/2015
28.03.2017
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he
has already filed the copy of private complaint.
Office is directed to list the matter along with the
copy of private complaint after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1583/2014
28.03.2017
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
On payment of process fee within 7 days, o ffice is
directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of
respondent Gaurav before this court on 02.05.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.838/2015
28.03.2017
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1384/2015
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As per office report, notice issued to respondent No.2
Lokendra @ Lokesh Yadav is received back with the report
that he is not residing on the given address.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with
correct address.
On payment of fresh process fee with correct
address issue notice to the respondent No.2 within 7 days,
returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.885/2015
28.03.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Record of the trial court is still awaited.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1407/2015
28.03.2017
Shri S.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file
reply of IA No.9562/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
By way of last indulgence, time is granted.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1510/2015
28.03.2017
Ms. Viraj Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Office is also directed to call for the status report of
ST No.247/2014 pending before the A.S.J., Rajgarh.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1527/2015
28.03.2017
Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri M.M.Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Record of the trial court is not received as yet.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1548/2015
28.03.2017
Ms. Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10976/2015
28.03.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.115/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Office is also directed to call for the status report of
Special Case No.10/2015 pending before the Special Judge,
Jhabua.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.316/2016
28.03.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.316/2016
28.03.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.824/2016
28.03.2017
Shri M.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1381/2016
28.03.2017
Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
None present for the respondent even after service of
notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1612/2016
28.03.2017
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016
28.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
supply the copy of documents to the non-applicants before
the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.465/2016
27.03.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant
No.2 Ravi.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2172/2017, which is an
application for temporary suspension of sentence for one
month filed by appellant No.2 Ravi S/o Nandlal Patidar and
grant of bail.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Manasa, Distt. Neemuch in ST No.57/14 by which the
appellant No.2 Ravi was convicted under Sections 394 read
with Section 398 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant is a permanent resident of District Neemuch. There
is no apprehension of his running during the pendency of this
appeal. The Mundan Snaskar of appellant's son is on
16.04.2017 in which appellant's presence is necessary, so
appellant would be released on bail for a period of one
month.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer.
In the considered opinion of this court it is not
appropriate to give interim bail to the appellant for the
programme of Mundan Sanskar of his son, therefore, no case
for temporary suspension of sentence as prayed is made out.
Hence, application (IA No.2172/2017) stands rejected.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.505/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for
the appellant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on objection put forth by the office
regarding maintainability of this appeal.
[2] This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the
order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhar, District Dhar in
Special Case No.121/2016; whereby he framed charges
against applicant for the offences under Section 294, 323/34
and 506B of the IPC and Section 3 (1-X) of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
according to Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an
appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not
being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an
Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and
on law. The order against which he filed this appeal is not an
interlocutory order and is a final order so appeal shall lie
against the impugned order.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submitted that the order of framing charge is not a final order.
It is an interlocutory order so appeal shall not lies against that
order.
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act reads as
thus :-
"14A. (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment,
sentence or order, not being an interlocutory
order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive
Special Court, to the High Court both on facts
and on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal shall lie
to the High Court against an order of the
Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court
granting or refusing bail.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force,
every appeal under this section shall be
preferred within a period of ninety days from
the date of the judgment, sentence or order
appealed from :
Provided that the High Court may entertain
an appeal after the expiry of the said period of
ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant
had sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal within the period of ninety days:
Provided further that no appeal shall be
entertained after the expiry of the period of
one hundred and eighty days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under Sub-
Section (1) shall, as for as possible, be
disposed of within a period of three months
from the date of admission of the appeal."
Which shows that appeal shall lie only against the
judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order
while order framing charge against the appellant filed this
appeal is an interlocutory order. Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in its judgment passed in V.C.Shukla V/s. State
through CBI reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 962
clearly held,
"The order of framing the charges is purely
an interlocutory order as it does not terminate
the proceedings but the trial goes on until it
culminates in acquittal or conviction. It is true
that if the Special Court would have refused
to frame charges and discharged the accused,
the proceedings would have terminated but
that is only one side of the picture. The other
side of the picture is that if the Special Court
refused to discharge the accused and framed
charges against him, then the order would be
interlocutory because the trial would still be
alive."
[5] So it is clear from the above pronouncement that
order of framing charges is an interlocutory order. While
according to provisions of section 14-A of SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order.
Hence, this Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the
order of framing charges against him by Special Judge SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhar is not maintainable.
Hence, this Criminal Appeal is rejected without commenting
on merit with the liberty that appellant is free to challenged
the impugned order according to law.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1443/2017
27.03.2017
Shri M.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Kailash Piple, respondent No.2 present in person
and wants time.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is
directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 17.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.298/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant wants to
withdraw this application with the liberty that on filing of
fresh application before the trial court, the trial court will
consider that application on merit without giving attention
to his previous order dated 22.02.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
C.c. today.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.222/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 2 weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is
also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.275/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.316/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce case diary and also wants time to comply with the
provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.315/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.328/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.496/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission
Appeal is admitted.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for
final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.512/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission
Appeal is admitted.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for
final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.540/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission
Appeal is admitted.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for
final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.547/2017
27.03.2017
Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission
Appeal is admitted.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for
final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.617/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.780/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1121/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1817/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
the case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce case diary positively before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3021/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant's only limited prayer is that learned trial court be
directed to try the matter expeditiously and wants to
withdraw this petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
direction that trial court would try to dispose the matter as
early as possible.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.3145/2017
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.816/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CR No.11/2015
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks four weeks'
time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA No.9/2017
27.03.2017
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shakil Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file
reply of IA No.52/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
FA No.320/2004
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.174/2007
27.03.2017
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Bhaiya @ Kishore is present in person
before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2149/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant Bhaiya @ Kishore
on 17.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Bhaiya @ Kishore on 17.01.2017 is
hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 19.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.76/2012
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue on IA No.1317/2017, IA No.1318/2017 and IA
No.1319/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1055/2012
27.03.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office within one week.
Let the matter be listed after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1316/2014
27.03.2017
Shri Hitesh Sharm, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Appellant Lucky is present in person before the Court
and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.755/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant Lucky on
28.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant was in custody in another offence, therefore, he
could not mark his presence on 28.09.2016 before this court.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Lucky on 28.09.2016 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 19.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.401/2015
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
produce the applicant Firoz Khan and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.850/2015
27.03.2017
Shri D.K.Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed. It
is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016
15.03.2017
Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondent even after service of notice.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
27.03.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.817/2005
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent No.2
Kaluram received with the report that he is suffering from
paralysis and is unable to move.
Looking to the report absence of respondent No.2
Kaluram on 01.02.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 28.08.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
Let the matter be listed on IA No.1714/2017 after
one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3194/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Office is directed to call for the status report of
Criminal Case No.7939/2010 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the status report
after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1320/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
None present for the surety even after service of
notice.
In absence of parties case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4921/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Office is directed to call for the status report of
Criminal Complaint Case No.237/2015 pending before the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, District
Shajapur.
Let the matter be listed along with the status report
after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.532/2000
24.03.2017
None present for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.1028/2017, an application for
deleting the name of appellant.
As per application and affidavit of Smt. Asha W/o
Basantalal & sister of the appellant, appellant Omprakash
has been expired on 27.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to verify the factum of death of appellant Omprakash S/o
Hiralal.
Let the matter be listed along with the report after
four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1189/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service
of notice.
In absence of parties case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.123/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.187/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.670/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks on any
Wednesday along with Cr.R.No.1213/2016 and
M.Cr.C.No.776/2017 for analogous hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.472/2005
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
None present for the legal representatives of
respondent No.1 even after service of notice.
Case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2452/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.32/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.305/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office within one week.
Let the matter be listed after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.225/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.310/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C. No.36/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.349/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.522/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1279/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1410/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2707/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1626/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4698/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.9070/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.10778/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Notice issued to respondent No.2 received
unserved.
Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2 on
payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4
weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.130/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.162/2017
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1085/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.7684/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.764/2014
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
Record is also not received as yet.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with
the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.858/2011
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1053/2013
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.164/2012
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.126/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2573/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.10637/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.9718/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.5956/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1288/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.118/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.28/2000
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1362/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.296/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1489/2015
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.134/2016
24.03.2017
None present for the parties.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.1401/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Umesh Mansore, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent
of both the parties.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with
Sections 397 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
29.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dhar in M.Cr.C. No.31/2015, whereby learned Judge rejected
the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
for getting maintenance from the non-applicant.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court
for getting maintenance from the non-applicant stating that
her marriage was solemnized with non-applicant on
25.04.2013. After marriage she resided with non-applicant
but only after four months of her marriage non-applicant and
his mother Nirmala Bai started harassing her for dowry and
subjected her to cruelty and demanded Rs.200000/- Non-
applicant often beated her and confined her into a room not
giving food for 2-3 days. Non-applicant also bought one plot
on installment and pressurize applicant to ask her father to
deposit the installment of plot. On 30.01.2015, non-applicant
and his father, mother and sister told the applicant to call her
father and ask him for sending Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise they
would kill her. When applicant denied, they beated her. On
that applicant left non-applicants' house and lodged report
against them. Non Applicant works in a private company and
earns Rs.18,000/- per month and is able to maintain her but
refused to do so without any reason. So non-applicant be
directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.
In his reply non-applicant opposed the prayer and
denied all the allegations and averred that he, his parents or
his sister never demanded dowry or never harassed or beated
the applicant. He also never demand money from applicant.
Behaviour of applicant herself is not good with the non-
applicant and his family members. Also she has filed false
report against the non-applicant and his family members.
Applicant works in parlour, teaches children and also does
sewing work and earns Rs.15,000/- per month and is able to
maintain herself, while non-applicant earns only Rs.4,000/-
per month and is unable to maintain the applicant. Applicant
without any reason is living separately from the non applicant
and, therefore, he prays for rejection of her application .
[3] Learned trial court rejected the applicant's prayer
observing that applicant is living separately from the non-
applicant without any sufficient reason and is also able to
maintain herself. Being aggrieved with that order applicant
filed this Revision.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
from the evidence produced by the applicant it is clearly
proved that non-applicant and his family members demanded
dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty. Non-
applicant used to beat her so she has sufficient reason to live
separately from the non-applicant and she is also unable to
maintain herself. While non-applicant is able to maintain her
but is not doing so without any sufficient reason. So applicant
is entitled to get maintenance from applicant. Learned trial
court committed mistake in rejecting applicant's prayer.
[5] On the other hand learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that learned Trial Court after evaluating
all the evidence rightly held that applicant is living separately
from the non-applicant without any sufficient reason and is
able to maintain herself. So she is not entitled get
maintenance from non applicant and prayed for rejection of
applicant's Revision.
[6] This court gone has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties.
[7] As regards the finding of trial court, that
applicant is living separately from non-applicant without
sufficient reason, it disbelieved her statement in this regard
only on the ground that her statement did not match with her
pleadings and that statements of applicant and her witnesses
Bhagwan Goyal (PW-2) and Shardabai (PW-3) also do not
match with each other. But this finding of trial court does not
appear to be correct.
[8] Proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are in
summary nature and the person seeking the remedy is
ordinarily a helpless person, the provision should be liberally
construed without injustice to the deserted wife and the
provisions regarding pleadings and proofs is not strictly
followed in the proceedings. In the maintenance proceeding
only on the basis of totality of evidence it would be seen that
whether applicant having sufficient reason to live separately
or not?
[9] Applicant Sangeetabai (PW-1) clearly stated in
her statement that her marriage was solemnized with non-
applicant on 25.04.2013 and after marriage she lived with
non-applicant but only after 15 days of marriage applicant
started harassing her and demanded money for plot, levelled
false allegations against her and also doubted her character
and her father-in-law demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry.
Non-applicant used to beat her. Once when she fell ill, non-
applicant did not even take her to hospital. Then her parents
came to her matrimonial house and took her to hospital for
treatment. On 30.01.2015, her mother-in-law beated her by
stick because she had not brought Rs.2,00,000/- from her
father. She sustained injury in her head and so she left her
matrimonial house and was forced to live with her parents.
Her statement is also corroborated by statement of other
witnesses Bhagwan Goyal (PW-2) and Shardabai (PW-3)
parents of the applicant, who also deposed that non-applicant
and her family members demanded dowry from the applicant
and used to harass her and subjected her to cruelty.
[10] Although non-applicant Pankaj denied from that
fact and deposed that he never demanded dowry and never
beated the applicant and on the contrary applicant's behaviour
was not good with him and his parents and wants to live
separately from his parents and always quarreled with him
and pressurized him to live separately from his parents, but
his statement does not appear to be trustworthy. Applicant
himself in his reply admitted that Police registered a crime
against him on applicant's report. If applicant and his
family's behaviour was good with applicant why she would
have left non-applicant's house and gave statement against
non-applicant about his bad behaviour.
[11] Although statement of applicant, her father
Bhagwan Goyal (PW-2) and mother Shardabai (PW-3)
regarding harassment do not match with each other regarding
the incident of harassment but in totality, from their
statements it is clear that non-applicant's behaviour was not
good with applicant which forced her to live separately from
the non-applicant.
[12] Applicant's mother Shardabai (PW-3) clearly
stated that they are willing to sent her daughter to her
matrimonial house but non-applicant is not ready to keep her
with him. Applicant's father Bhagwan Goyal (PW-2) also
deposed that her daughter wanted to go to her matrimonial
house but non-applicant did not depose in his statement that
he is willing to keep her with him. From his statement it does
not appear that he made any genuine effort to persuade
applicant to live with him. It also shows that non-applicant
himself is not willing to keep applicant with him.
[13] In these circumstances, it is clearly proved from
the evidence that applicant has sufficient reason to live
separately from non-applicant besides non-applicant himself
does not want to keep applicant with him. Learned trial court
committed mistake in holding that applicant failed to prove
that she did not have sufficient reason to live separately from
the non-applicant.
[14] Learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted
that applicant neither pleaded in her application nor deposed
in her examination-in-chief that she is unable to maintain
herself. On the contrary applicant in her cross-examination
clearly admitted that she teaches in a private school and earns
Rs.4,000/- to 5,000/- per month which shows that applicant is
able to maintain herself but this argument does not appear to
be correct.
[15] Although applicant neither in her application nor
in her examination-in-chief deposed that she was unable to
maintain herself but in her application filed for getting
interim maintenance she clearly pleaded that she is
unemployed and unable to maintain herself. That application
is also a part of her main application . Moreover in her cross-
examination also she denied from the suggestion she is doing
job at Dhar presently, which shows that applicant is not able
to maintain herself.
[16] Although applicant deposed in her cross-
examination that earlier she did teaching job and earns
Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- but that job was done by the
applicant when she was living in her matrimonial house at
Indore not after filing of application. Only on the ground that
she is having capacity to earn does not mean that she is able
to maintain herself. The potential ability to earn will not be
considered. The 'able body' concept cannot be extended to
the case of wife for this will defeat the very object of the
legislation. The holding of an employment sometime back
does not mean she has the capacity and is able to maintain
herself
[17] Although non-applicant deposed in his statement
that applicant works as Teacher but did not file any
documentary evidence nor stated in his statement as in which
school did the applicant work. So non-applicant's statement
that applicant works as Teacher does not appear to be correct.
In these circumstances, it is also proved that applicant is not
able to maintain herself.
[18] Applicant stated that non-applicant works in
private company and earns Rs.18,000/- per month. Although
non-applicant in his statement denied the fact that he works in
a private company and deposed that at he is unemployed
presently and only did labour work and earns only Rs.3,000/-
per month. But here also his statement does not appear to be
correct because non-applicant himself in his reply of main
application stated that he is doing job and earns Rs.4,000/-
per month and in reply of interim maintenance application
stated that he is doing job and earns Rs.5,000/- per month
which shows that non-applicant gave false statement in his
court statement for hiding his income. These days daily
wages worker earns Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. Non-
applicant also did not state that he is unable to work because
of any physical disability. So it can easily be assumed that his
income is minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month.
[19] From the above discussion, it is clearly proved
that applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the
non-applicant and is unable to maintain herself while
applicant, who is able to maintain her is not doing so without
sufficient reason. So Revision is allowed and judgment of the
Trial Court is set aside and non-applicant is directed to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from
date of the order of trial court i.e. 29.09.2016.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.428/2014
21.03.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.3010/2014, which is an application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for restraining the
respondents No.1 to 3 from interfering in possession of the
appellant in suit land Survey No.639 area 1.275 hectare
situated at Village Morgaon, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar
during pendency of appeal.
Appellant stated in his application (IA
No.3010/2014) that he is in possession of the suit land and
also wanted to transfer the suit land to others. So, respondents
No.1 to 3 be directed not to interfere in the possession of the
appellant on suit land and not to transfer it to another person
during pendency of appeal.
Respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply opposes the
prayer and submitted that they are in possession of the suit
land and not the appellant. Learned trial court after evaluating
all the evidence in his judgment clearly held that the suit land
is in possession of the respondent and not the appellant and
also restrained him from interfering in respondent's
possession of suit land. So there is no prima facie case in
favour of appellant for allowing his application and prayed
for rejection.
This court has gone through the record and
arguments put forth by the counsels for both the parties. It is
clear from the trial court's judgment that trial court after
evaluating all the evidence clearly held that appellant had
failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land. On
the contrary it was proved that respondents No.1 to 3 are in
possession of suit land and trial court also decreed the
counter claim of respondents No.1 to 3 and restricted the
appellant from interfering in possession of respondents in the
suit land. In revenue papers Khasra (Ex.P/1) also it is
mentioned that suit land is in possession of the respondents.
So there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant to
grant stay in his favour, hence IA No.3010/2014 has no merit
and is hereby rejected.
Appeal is already admitted, so list it for final hearing
in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.291/2012
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.1811/2017, which is an application
under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC for taking legal
representatives of deceased Lallusingh Chouhan on record.
Learned counsel for the legal representative of
respondent Lallusingh Chouhan has no objection in allowing
the application.
After due consideration, application is allowed.
Legal representatives of deceased respondent Lallusingh
Chouhan be taken on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
incorporate the name of legal representative of respondent
Lallusingh Chouhan in the appeal memo within ten days.
The appeal is already admitted for final hearing,
therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.114/2012
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.115/2016, which is an application
for permission to change of counsel.
Prayer is allowed.
The Revision is already admitted, so list the
Revision for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.214/2000
22.03.2017
Shri J.B.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file
appropriate application regarding respondent No.5.
Issue notice on payment of process fee within 7
days, returnable within 4 weeks for proposed legal
representatives of respondents No.7, 8 and 13.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1417/2017
22.03.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
file copy of complaint and other necessary documents.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.276/2017
22.03.2017
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
copy of order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Neemuch in M.Cr.C.No.55/2014 dated 25.06.2015.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.354/2017
22.03.2017
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
documents in support of her petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.682/2017
22.03.2017
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2966/2017
22.03.2017
Shri Amit singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.45/2015
22.03.2017
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.1132/2016
21.03.2017
Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 5.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Appeal No.341/2015;
whereby learned Judge has affirmed the judgment of
acquittal dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Dhar in Criminal Case
No.3178/2008; whereby learned Magistrate acquitted the
respondents from the charge for the offence under
Sections 294 (2 counts), 323 (3 counts), 323/149 (3
counts) and 506 Part-II (2 counts) and Sections 25(1-B)
(a) and 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 25.09.2008
complainant Shakuntalabai lodged report against non-
applicants at P.S. AJK, Dhar mentioning that she with
other villagers of Golupura had gone to Morgaon for
cutting Soyabean crop. Balaram stoped them from doing
so and when they were about to return to their home, non-
applicants Narayan, Badri, Raghu and Suresh came there
and stopped them and non-applicant Badri fired with gun
and non-applicants beated complainant Shakuntalabai,
Rukminibai and Yashwant. Non-applicant Balaram
beated Yashwant by sword. Yashwant sustained injury in
his right palm. When Rukminibai tried to rescue
Yashwant, Balaram assaulted her by sword and
Rukminibai sustained injury in her left hand thumb. Non-
applicant Suresh also beated Yashwant by hand and fists
and Raghu also assaulted Yashwant by Dhariya and also
threatened to kill them. On that report police registered
Crime No.50/2008 for the offence under Sections 341,
291, 506, 324, 323, 352 and 427 of the IPC and
investigated the matter and after investigation filed
chargesheet against the non-applicants. Thereafter, on
that chargesheet Criminal Case No.3178/2008 was
registered against the non-applicants.
[3] Learned trial court framed the charges against
the non-applicants for the offence under Sections 341,
291, 506, 324, 323, 352 and 427 of the IPC and tried the
case, however, after trial learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class acquitted the non-applicants from the aforesaid
charges, against which applicant filed Cr.A.No.341/2015
in the court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar,
who again rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved with the
judgment applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that it is clearly proved from the statement of complainant
Shakuntalabai (PW-1) which is also corroborated by the
statement of Yashwant (PW-2). Rukminibai (PW-6),
Vinod (PW-8), Kamal (PW-9) and from the medical
reports of complainant Shakuntalabai and other injured
Rukminibai clearly proved that in the incident non-
applicants abused and beated Shakuntalabai, Rukminibai
and Yashwant and threatened to kill them. Learned Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court had committed mistake
in acquitting non-applicants from the aforesaid charge.
[5] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that there is no reliable evidence on record for convicting
the non-applicants No.1 to 5. The Trial Court as well as
Appellate Court has rightly acquitted the non-applicants
and prays for rejection.
[6] This Court has gone through the record and
the arguments put forth by learned counsels of both the
parties.
[7] In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in AIR 1962
SC1788 a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with the power of the High Court for
directing retrial ruled as thus:
"It is true that it is open to a High Court
in revision to set aside an order of
acquittal even at the instance of private
parties, though the State may not have
thought fit to appeal; but this
jurisdiction should in our opinion be
exercised by the High Court only in
exceptional cases, when there is some
glaring defect in the procedure or there
is a manifest error on a point of law and
consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. Sub Section (4)
of Section 439 forbids a High Court
from converting a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction and that makes it
all the more incumbent on the High
Court to see that it does not convert the
finding of acquittal into one of
conviction by the indirect method of
ordering retrial, when it cannot itself
directly convert a finding of acquittal
into a finding of conviction. This places
limitations on the power of the High
Court to set aside a finding of acquittal
in revision and it is only in exceptional
cases that this power should be
exercised. "
But in the case in hand there is no exceptional
circumstance as such to intervene in the finding of
acquittal. Both the Courts trial Court as well appellate
Court after evaluating all the evidence produced by the
prosecution held that prosecution failed to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubt against respondents. So there is
no scope in the revision to appreciate the evidence of
prosecution for the purpose that another view on the basis
of the evidence brought on record is possible.
[8] Even otherwise, there are many contradictions
and omissions in the statements of complainant
Shakuntalabai and injured and other eye witnesses
regarding the incident. Their statements are also not
corroborated by medical evidence. According to
prosecution story, non-applicant had beated complainant
Shakuntalabai. But Shakuntalabai herself did not depose
in her statement that non-applicants beated her. Likewise
she deposed that non-applicants beated Rukminibai and
Yashwant by sword and dhariya, which are sharp cutting
weapons but that is also not corroborated by the medical
reports, so in the considered opinion of this court learned
trial court as well as appellate court have not committed
any mistake in acquitting the accused/non-applicants
No.1 to 5 from the aforesaid charges, hence, Revision has
no force. So, this Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
Cr.R. No.1054/2015
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1188/2015
22.03.2017
Ms. Poorva Mahajan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Raghuveer Yardi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment
shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.23/2016
22.03.2017
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.44/2016
22.03.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.295/2016
22.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.698/2016
22.03.2017
Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.702/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1606/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
compromise application.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.16/2017
22.03.2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.299/2015
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.42/2016
22.03.2017
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service
of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent
case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C. No.109/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.583/2015
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to file reply of IA No.5134/2015.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.946/2012
22.03.2017
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant pleads no
instructions. Issue SPC for securing the presence of
appellant.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.975/2013
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
produce the applicant Dinesh and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.422/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue on IA No.2894/2016, IA No.5960/2016 and IA
No.7334/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 06.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.733/2016
22.03.2017
None present for the petitioner.
Bailable warrant of applicant Akash received
unserved.
Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest to secure
presence of the applicant Akash.
Let the matter be listed on 16.05.2017 along with
Cr.R.No.656/2016, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.912/2016
22.03.2017
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to issue again production warrant
to secure the presence of petitioner Salim before this court
on 10.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1519/2016
22.03.2017
Shri D.S.Kasania, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondent even after service
of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 26.04.2017.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.1889/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8705/2016
22.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue on IA No.7837/16.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.51/2017
22.03.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.52/2017
22.03.2017
Shri S.V.Dandwate, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.510/2017
22.03.2017
None present for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.9125/2014
22.03.2017
Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to file inquiry report conducted by the Police, Mahila Cell,
District Ratlam.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C 1 Shri Lucky Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned senior counsel with Shri Ramesh
Gangare, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.3/State.
This revision has been filed by the applicant under
Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
29.07.2015 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in
criminal Appeal No.160/2014 whereby he has affirmed the
judgment of acquittal dated 10.07.2014 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class- Dewas in Criminal Case
No.2831/2009 whereby learned Magistrate has acquitted the
respondents from the charges under Sections 498-A, 323,
294, 506, 34 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, on 04.09.2009
complainant/applicant lodged the report against respondent
No.1 and 2 at Police Station Kotwali, Dewas averting that she
married with the respondent No.1 in the year 1999 and after
nine months of her marriage respondents No.1 & his brother
respondent No. 2 used to harass her physically and mentally
and when she wanted money for her survival they used to
beat her and did not give money for her survival. Whenever
she went out from the house they abused her at public places
and threatened to kill her if she filed any complaint against
them. On 04.09.2009 at 10:00 am, when she demanded
money from the respondents for her daily requirements, they
beat her and threatened to kill her. On that report, crime
No.831/2009 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Indore,
under Section 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and after the
investigation charge-sheet was filed against respondents No.1
& 2. On that charge-sheet criminal case No.2831/2009 was
registered and learned JMFC tried them after framing charges
under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 294, 506 part II of IPC against
respondents . But after trial learned JMFC acquitted the
accused from the charges against which applicant filed the
criminal appeal No.160/2014 in the Court of II Additional
Sessions Judge, Dewas, who again rejected the appeal. Being
aggrieved this revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
it is clearly proved from the statement of the complainant
which is also corroborated by the medical report Ex.P/2
proved by Dr. Kailashlal Devda (PW.6) that respondents used
to harass the applicant and subjected her to cruelty.
Therefore, trial Court as well as Appellate Court had
committed mistake in acquitting respondent No.1 & 2 from
the said charges.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2
submitted that there is no evidence on record for convicting
the respondents. The trial Court as well as appellate Court
have rightly acquitted the respondents. He also placed
reliance on apex Court judgment passed in the case of
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh vs. State of Bihar
reported in AIR 2002 SC 2907, and judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Maya Bai and
another vs. Bhajan Lal and others [2005(2) MPLJ] page
37 and further submitted that judgment of acquittal cannot be
overturned in revision merely on the ground that another view
on the basis of the evidence brought on record is possible.
In K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr AIR 1962 SC1788 a three-Judge Bench of
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the power of the High
Court for directing retrial ruled as thus:
"It is true that it is open to a High
Court in revision to set aside an order
of acquittal even at the instance of
private parties, though the State may
not have thought fit to appeal; but this
jurisdiction should in our opinion be
exercised by the High Court only in
exceptional cases, when there is some
glaring defect in the procedure or there
is a manifest error on a point of law
and consequently there has been a
flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub
Section (4) of Section 439 forbids a
High Court from converting a finding
of acquittal into one of conviction and
that makes it all the more incumbent
on the High Court to see that it does
not convert the finding of acquittal into
one of conviction by the indirect
method of ordering retrial, when it
cannot itself directly convert a finding
of acquittal into a finding of
conviction. This places limitations on
the power of the High Court to set
aside a finding of acquittal in revision
and it is only in exceptional cases that
this power should be exercised. "
But in the case in hand there is no exceptional circumstance
as such to intervene in the finding of acquittal. Both the
Courts trial Court as well appellate Court after evaluating all
the evidence produced by the prosecution held that
prosecution failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt
against respondents. So there is no scope in the revision to
appreciate the evidence of prosecution for the purpose that
another view on the basis of the evidence brought on record is
possible. Even otherwise, it appears from the statement of
complainant that she had clearly admitted in her cross-
examination that respondents are not giving money for her
necessary expenses and when she demanded money they
quarreled with her due to which she lodged the report. Apart
from that there is no dispute between her and the respondents.
Looking to her cross examination, It is clear that allegations
leveled by her in the FIR against respondents are not correct.
Although Dr. Kaliash (PW.6), who examined the applicant
and prepared the medical report Ex.P/4 deposed that on
examination he found three bruises on her body. But He
clearly stated that he examined the applicant on 01.09.2009
and duration of injuries was within 24 hours while
complainant lodged the report on 04.09.2009 and it is not
mentioned in the report that respondent beat her on
01/09/2009. So in considered opinion of this Court the trial
Court as well as appellate Court have not committed any
mistake in acquitting the accused respondents No.1 & 2 from
the aforesaid charges, therefore, this revision stands
dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
JYOTI
Cr.R.No.72/2010
21.03.2017
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on IA No.2088/2017, which is an application
for extending the time for depositing a sum of Rs.95,000/- in
the trial court.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
applicant is permitted to deposit Rs.95,000/- in the trial court
within a period of 10 days from today. Revision is already
admitted, so let the Revision be listed for final hearing in due
course.
C.c. today.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.550/2008
21.03.2017
Ms. Rajni Vajpayee, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.10505/2016, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant Sayeed Shah on
22.09.2016.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Sayeed Shah on 22.09.2016 is hereby
condoned.
It appears from the record that appellant Sayeed Shah
is regularly appearing before the Registry of this Court. So,
he is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on
such dates as fixed by the Registry of this Court.
The appeal is already admitted, therefore, list the
appeal for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.11874/2016
21.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.190/2016
21.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.914/2012
21.03.2017
Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to verify the factum of death of appellant No.2 Jaswant
Singh S/o Amar Singh Rajpur.
Time is granted.
Bailable warrant issued against appellant Jaswant
Singh be recalled.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.268/2016
21.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.623/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Service report of bailable warrant issued against
appellant No.6 Gabbar is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1170/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the appellant/State.
Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
produce respondents No.1 Pintu @ Lokendra Singh and
No.2 Samarth @ Samarsingh before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to
keep the respondents No.1 Pintu @ Lokendra Singh and
No.2 Samarth @ Samarsingh present before this Court
positively on 17.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 17.04.2017 for
appearance of the respondents No.1 Pintu @ Lokendra
Singh and No.2 Samarth @ Samarsingh.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3202/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the applicant/State.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondents No.4 to 12.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks 15 days
time to pay fresh process fee.
Prayer is allowed.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.264/2017
21.03.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.R.No.67/2017 after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.105/2017
21.03.2017
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1094/2017
21.03.2017
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2 even after
service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue
the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.39/2017
21.03.2017
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.189/2017
21.03.2017
Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure
the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.181/2013
21.03.2017
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
arguments cannot be concluded within 30 minutes, so matter
be listed for final hearing in due course.
IA No.1700/2017 has become rendered infructuous
in the light of the aforesaid order.
Accordingly, application (IA No.1700/2017) is
dismissed as infructuous.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.544/2014
21.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as
prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1529/2014
21.03.2017
Shri Ajay Gome, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
produce appellant Subhash before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
keep the appellant Subhash present before this Court
positively on 10.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017 for
appearance of the appellant Subhash.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1639/2014
21.03.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Appellant Rohit Soni is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2005/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant Rohit Soni on
01.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Rohit Soni on 01.03.2017 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.159/2015
21.03.2017
Shri Rajendra Bapat, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Applicant Javed Sheikh is present in person before
the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1868/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant Javed Sheikh on
26.09.2016.
After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of applicant Javed Sheikh on 26.09.2016 is hereby
condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4236/2016
21.03.2017
None present for the applicant even after second
round.
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1and 2.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.3/State.
Even on 03.03.2017, none present for the applicant. It
shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the
petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of
prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.9690/2014
21.03.2017
None present for the applicant, even after second
round.
Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 3
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent No.4/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant case
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8602/2013
21.03.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, case is
adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.488/2004
21.03.2017
None present for the appellant, even after second
round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant case
is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.961/2015
21.03.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
As per report dated 21.02.2017 of S.D.O.P, P.S.
Mandleshwar, District Khargone appellant No.1 Ramlal was
expired on 20.11.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant
No.1 Ramlal.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to
delete the name of appellant No.1 Ramlal from appeal memo.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A. No.1214/2015
21.03.2017
None present for the appellant.
Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.151/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Abhishek soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the applicant/State
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
copy of plaint and other necessary documents.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.471/2016
21.03.2017
None present for the applicant.
Service report is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.978/2016
21.03.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after second
round.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue on admission.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.109/2017
16.03.2017
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
[1] As far as divorce is concerned applicant took a plea
that he got divorce from non-applicant by mutual divorce
deed (Ex.D/2), so he is not bound to pay maintenance to
non-applicant, so burden of proving that plea was on
applicant. Although applicant deposed that non-applicant is
having affair with another boy and she wanted to marry
with that boy and she disliked the applicant and was
pressurizing applicant for giving her divorce. So he
divorced the non-applicant in presence of her family
members. The divorce deed (Ex.D/2) was executed by him
and non-applicant both voluntarily in front of family
members of non-applicant but non-applicant clearly denied
that fact and deposed that applicant and his father came her
parental house and forcibly took her signatures on some
blank stamp papers. Applicant for proving Ex.D/2 not
produced any witness of that deed. Regarding that deed
statement of Sakina Khan (DW-2) mother of applicant and
Shakur Khan (DW-3) father of applicant and Vahid Khan
(DW-4) also contradictory. Applicant not stated in his
statement that from which place Ex.D/2 was executed.
Sakina Khan (DW-2) mother of applicant deposed in Para
5 of her cross-examination that non-applicant sent the
divorce deed through his brother to her. Shakur Khan
(DW-3) deposed that divorce deed executed on
Mandleshwar and that deed wrote by brother of non-
applicant. He was not present during that proceeding.
Vahid Khan (DW-4) deposed that at Mandleshwar Ex.D/2
was executed and that deed wrote by brother of non-
applicant. While it is not mentioned that on which place the
deed was executed, even in that deed where it is mention
that he gave divorce on ^^rqedks rykd nsrk gwa] rqedks
rykd nsrk gwa] rqedks rykd nsrk gwa**. There is no
signature of applicant. Even it is also mentioned that after
getting Mehar and dowry non-applicant signed the divorce
deed. Although applicant also filed Ex.D/3 receipt of
getting Mehar by non-applicant but on that deed executed
by Bilkis Bi, non-applicant so from Ex.D/2 it is not proved
that applicant got divorce from non-applicant with consent.
Learned trial court did not commit any mistake in holding
that applicant failed to prove that he got divorce from the
non-applicant.
[2] As far as non-applicant lived separately from the
applicant concerned, non-applicant clearly deposed in her
statement that behaviour of applicant and his family
members was not good with her. He used to demand dowry
and harass her and pressuring her for bring dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. On 20.03.2014, applicant
beated her and sent her to her parental house. At that time
she lived for two months in her parental house. After that
applicant brought back her in her matrimonial house and
told that if she would fulfil the demand of dowry then she
will be allowed to live in her matrimonial house, so she
was forced to live with her parents. Although applicant
denied the fact and deposed that he never demanded dowry
and harass the non-applicant. The behaviour of non-
applicant herself was not good with him and she used to
quarrel with him and his family members and told that she
did not want to live with him and told that she wanted
divorce from him because she is having affair with another
boy and she left his house. He took her back after
compromise. At that time non-applicant admitted that in
future she will not quarrel with applicant but after that
again she used to quarrel with him and voluntarily left her
matrimonial house, but his statement is not appeared to be
correct because non-applicant did not want to live with
applicant and wanted to marry with another boy that's why
she would go in her matrimonial house after compromise.
[3] Although learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that it is clearly appeared from Ex.D/1
compromise deed, which is executed by non-applicant that
her behaviour with applicant was not good but applicant's
argument has no force. Although in Ex.D/1 it is mentioned
that non-applicant admitted that in future she will not
quarrel with applicant and obey her parents-in-law's order
but in that deed it is also mentioned that applicant admitted
that he will never raise hand on non-applicant which is
corroborated by the non-applicant's statement that applicant
used to beat her, so on Ex.D/1 it cannot be assumed that
behaviour of non-applicant is not good with applicant.
From Ex.D/2 it is clear that applicant did not want to keep
non-applicant with him, so learned trial court also not
committed mistake in holding that non-applicant having
sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1347/2015
20.03.2017
Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time
to produce case diary of Criminal Case No.17781/2000
registered at Police Station Chhoti Gwaltoli, Indore.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the aforesaid case diary positively on the next
date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2617/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to file status report regarding court fees before the next date
of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2847/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.1/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within 7 days returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is
also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of
hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A. No.316/2008
20.03.2017
Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondent even after service
of notice.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1168/2011
20.03.2017
None present for the respondent even after second
round.
Shri D.P.S.Yadav, learned counsel appears on behalf
of Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.908/2014
20.03.2017
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the copy of report of finger print expert and wants time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.30/2016
20.03.2017
Shri Sanjay sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.119/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.
Status report also not received as yet.
Office is directed to produce the status report.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1020/2016
20.03.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after second
round.
In absence of respondent matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1121/2016
20.03.2017
Shri Darshan Arora, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Record is not received as yet.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1149/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.317/2016
16.03.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent
of both the parties.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with
Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
03.12.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
West Nimar Mandleshwar in M.Cr.C.No.3/2015, whereby
learned Judge allowed the non-applicant's application filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to
pay her Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that non-applicant filed
an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting
maintenance from the applicant before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, West Nimar Mandleshwar contending that she
is the legally wedded wife of applicant. Her marriage was
solemnized with applicant on 18.04.2012. At the time of
marriage applicant told her that he worked at Mumbai as
Manager in ICICI Bank and earned Rs.12,00,000/- per annum
also assured that within two or three months of marriage he
would take flat on rent in Mumbai and bring non-applicant to
Mumbai and that she had to live with his parents at Nagda
only for two to three months. After marriage she resided at
her matrimonial home at Nagda, with non-applicant only for
10 days and applicant went to Mumbai thereafter . Before
leaving for Mumbai he assured that in a 2 or 2-1/2 months he
would get a house on rent and would bring non applicant to
Mumbai but applicant did not bring her to Mumbai as
promised and talked rudely with non-applicant on phone so
she was forced to live with applicant's parents at Nagda. The
behaviour of applicant's parents sisters was also not good
with her. They used to harass her for dowry and subjected her
to cruelty. On the eve of Diwali applicant came to Nagda.
Then she again asked applicant to take her to Mumbai. At
that time, applicant told her that he did not have money to
take a house on rent at Mumbai, and would take her only if
she would get Rs.40,00,000/- from her parents for buying a
flat in Mumbai, otherwise she would have to live with his
parents at Nagda. In December, 2012 applicant again came to
Nagda from Mumbai and non-applicant again requested
applicant to take her to Bombay on which applicant beated
her and she left the matrimonial house and was forced to live
with his parents. She is unable to maintain herself, while
applicant is a Senior Manager in ICICI Bank and gets salary
of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and able to maintain her but
refused to do so without any sufficient reason, so applicant be
directed to give her Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance.
Applicant in his reply denied the allegations
levelled by the non-applicant against him and averred that he
and his family members neither demanded dowry nor
misbehaved with her. He never gave false assurance to non-
applicant and since he was unable to keep non-applicant with
him at Mumbai, he left his job of Mumbai and is presently
unemployed. He wants to keep non-applicant with him so had
filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
for Restitution of Conjugal Right. The non-applicant is
without any sufficient reason voluntarily living with her
parents and runs a coaching class in Khargone and earns
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month and is able to maintain
herself while applicant only earns Rs.3,50,000/- per annum.
Applicant is maintaining his old parents and unmarried sisters
also , so he is unable to give maintenance to the non-applicant
and prays for rejection.
Learned trial court after recording evidence
allowed the non-applicant's application and directed the
applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the
non-applicant observing that non-applicant had sufficient
reason to live separately with applicant and is unable to
maintain herself, while the applicant is able to maintain her
but not doing so without any sufficient reason. Being
aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal
Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
it is clear from the evidence that applicant without any
sufficient reason voluntarily lives separately from applicant
and is also able to maintain herself while applicant is
unemployed presently and unable to maintain the non-
applicant. The trial Court has committed mistake in directing
the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that it is clear from the evidence that
applicant works in ICICI Bank as Manager and earns
Rs.30,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the non-applicant
also submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that
non-applicant is having sufficient reason to live separately
from applicant and is unable to maintain herself. So, learned
trial court did not commit any mistake in directing the
applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to non-
applicant. She also filed an application as cross objection to
enhance the maintenance amount.
[5] Regarding the trial court's finding that non-
applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the
applicant, non-applicant in her statement clearly deposed that
her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 18.04.2012 at
Nagda. After marriage she lived with applicant at Nagda. At
the time of marriage applicant told her that he worked at
Mumbai as Manager in ICICI Bank and earned
Rs.12,00,000/- per annum also assured that within two or
three months of marriage he would take flat on rent in
Mumbai and bring non-applicant to Mumbai and that she had
to live with his parents at Nagda only for two to three months.
After marriage she resided at her matrimonial home at Nagda,
with non-applicant only for 10 days and applicant went to
Mumbai thereafter. Before leaving for Mumbai he assured
that in a 2 or 2-1/2 months he would get a house on rent and
would bring non applicant to Mumbai but applicant did not
bring her to Mumbai as promised and talked rudely with non-
applicant on phone so she was forced to live with applicant's
parents at Nagda. The behaviour of applicant's parents and
sisters was also not good with her. They used to harass her for
dowry and subjected her to cruelty. On the eve of Diwali
applicant came to Nagda. Then she again asked applicant to
take her to Mumbai. At that time, applicant told her that he
did not have money to take a house on rent at Mumbai, and
would take her only if she would get Rs.40,00,000/- from her
parents for buying a flat in Mumbai, otherwise she would
have to live with his parents at Nagda. In December, 2012
applicant again came to Nagda from Mumbai and non-
applicant again requested applicant to take her to Bombay on
which applicant beated her. Applicant used to tell her that he
only married her for serving his parents and so he would not
take her to Mumbai. On this she returned to her parental
house in February, 2014 and is living with her parents since
then. Applicant never came to take her back Non-applicant's
statement is also corroborated by the statement of Manish
Panwar (PW-2) and Dashrath Singh (PW-3).
Applicant also in his statement did not clearly
denied from the fact. Although he deposed that he could not
take non-applicant to Mumbai as he did not have a flat where
he could live with non-applicant but he used to come to
Nagda to meet non-applicant but non-applicant clearly denied
this fact that applicant came to Nagda every month. So there
is no reason to disbelieve her statement that applicant did not
keep her with him at Mumbai. After marriage from
18.04.2012 to January, 2014 she lived at Nagda with
applicant's parent and sisters. This behaviour of applicant
comes under purview of cruelty that he had left his wife alone
with his parents at Nagda and lived separately in Mumbai
against his promise.
[6] Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted
that applicant filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act to keep non-applicant with him but non-
applicant was not keen to live with applicant and is living
voluntarily with her parents. But this argument also has no
force as from non-applicant's statement which is also
corroborated by applicant himself, it is clear that after
marriage i.e. from 18.04.2012 to January, 2014 non-applicant
lived with applicant's parents at Nagda and applicant never
tried to take her to Mumbai. Moreover in his statement
applicant did not state that he was ready to keep her in
Mumbai with him if she returned back. So learned trial court
did not commit any mistake in holding that non-applicant has
sufficient reason to live separately from applicant.
[7] Non-applicant in her statement clearly stated that
she is unable to maintain herself. Although applicant in his
statement deposed that non-applicant runs coaching classes
and also has a house in Choti Khargone which she has let on
rent and earned Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from
rental and also earned Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month
from coaching but applicant did not produce any
documentary and other reliable evidence in this regard so
there is no reason to disbelieve non-applicant's statement that
she is not able to maintain herself.
[8] Although applicant in his statement stated that
earlier he worked in ICICI bank in Mumbai but is presently
unemployed but has not filed any documentary evidence
showing that he left this job. On the contrary applicant
himself filed his payslips Ex.D/2 to ExD/5 which shows that
applicant works in ICICI company at Mumbai. In Ex.D/3
payslip for the month of October, 2014 mentioning that
applicant gets Rs.30,831/- per month as salary.
[9] Although learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that burden of maintenance of parents and
unmarried sisters is also on him but he cannot deny paying
maintenance to his wife only on that ground because she is
also his responsibility. Learned trial court directed the
applicant to give only Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance
which is only 1/6 of applicant's one month's pay, so it cannot
be said excess in any case .
It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that
learned trial court did not commit any mistake in awarding
Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, so
revision has no force and deserves to be rejected. Hence, this
revision is hereby dismissed.
Although non-applicant also filed an application
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC as cross-objection, but in
Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act and Sections 397 &
401 of Criminal Procedure Code under which applicant has
filed this criminal revision there is no provision regarding
filing of cross-objection, so it is not maintainable.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.173/2008
16.03.2017
Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant No.2 Bherulal @ Bheru S/o Nathulal Solanki has
expired.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to verify the factum of death of appellant No.2 Bherulal @
Bheru S/o Nathulal Solanki and file the report positively on
the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.9812/2016
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Service report of complainant is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the
service report.
Let the matter be listed along with the service
report after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.11771/2016
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.104/2017
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.129/2017
16.03.2017
Shri Ramakant sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
the case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce case diary positively before the next date of
hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.957/2016
16.03.2017
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondents, even after service
of notice
Heard on the question of admission
Appeal is admitted.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R. No.249/2015
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.981/2014
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.981/2014
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.1419/2016
16.03.2017
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11892/2016
16.03.2017
Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 17.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1306/2016
16.03.2017
Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1452/1998
16.03.2017
Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to
produce appellant No.2 Kailash @ Kalua before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to
keep the appellant No.2 Kailash @ Kalua present before
this Court positively on 05.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for
appearance of the appellant No.2 Kailash @ Kalua.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.304/2001
16.03.2017
None present for the appellant.
Respondent Ghanshyamdas is present in person
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant,
matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.487/2002
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to verify the factum of death of appellant No.1 Bahadur
Singh positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1460/2010
16.03.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
As per office report, non-bailable warrant of
appellant Mohd. Salim and notice to his surety not received
as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
report after three weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.420/2012
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to file
reply of IA No.1222/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1036/2014
16.03.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
the receipt of depositing amount.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.117/2015
16.03.2017
Smt. Usha Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.491/2015
16.03.2017
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri V.K.Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file
copy of some documents and wants adjournment.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.2358/2014
16.03.2017
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 5.
None for respondent No.6, even after service by
publication.
Heard on IA No.922/2017, which is an application
filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 for withdrawal of
amount deposited by the appellant in execution of award
passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sarangpur, District Rajgarh (Biaora).
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5
submitted that deceased Javed, who died in the accident
was the husband of respondent No.1 and father of
respondents No.2 to 4 and son of respondent No.5 and was
the sole bread earner of the family. After death of Javed,
respondents are hand to mouth and not able to fulfil their
daily needs and so they be permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal in
execution of award passed in Claim Case No.14/2013 dated
28.08.2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it
is appropriate that respondents No.1 to 5 be allowed to
withdraw 50% of the amount deposited before the Trial
Court on furnishing adequate solvent surety.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
application (IA No.922/2017) is allowed. Respondents
No.1 to 5 are permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount
deposited by the appellant in execution of award passed by
the the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sarangpur, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in Claim Case
No.14/2013 on furnishing adequate solvent surety to the
satisfaction of the concerning M.A.C.T.
Since, the appeal is already admitted, so it be listed
for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11747/2016
16.03.2017
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the applicant/State.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1523/2016
15.03.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt. Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.
[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.
[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow. At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik. Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat. When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick. On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away. On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.
[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable. There are many contradictions and omissions in their statements. Learned Trial Court without appreciating their statements wrongly found the appellant Ishak guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC. Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.
[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident. Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.
[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries. So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak. Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.
[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Civil Revision No.46/2017
15.03.2017
Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.
None present for the respondent.
Heard.
This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction. Sardar Bi expired on 25.07.1994. In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right. So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.
[3] During trial of the suit applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court contending that suit is not maintainable according to Section 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988. Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory. So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief. Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit. So suit is rejected.
[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.
[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence. Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation. So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi. He never intended that Sardar Bi was the owner of that plot and real owner of the suit plot is plaintiff/respondent. So looking to the averment of plaint present suit is barred by the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988, although respondent/plaintiff also sought relief to declare him owner of half of the suit property being a heir of Sardar Bi but that relief is contradictory to the main relief so plaint for that relief is also not maintainable and Learned Trial Court committed mistake in rejecting applicant's application. In this regard he also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment passed in T.Arivandandam V/s. T.V.Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421, But the facts of this case do not match with the instant case. In that case court rejected the plaint on the ground that plaint is meritless and vexatious. He also placed reliance on the Karnataka High Court's judgment passed in Syed Mujibur Rahman V/s. Abdul Azeez reported in AIR 2001 Karnataka Page 104. But that judgment also does not help the applicant because in that case plaintiff did not pay court fee on the relief which was added by him in the plaint by way of amendment.
[5] It is clear from the copy of the plaint that plaintiff also pleaded that he is in possession of suit plot and sought relief of Injunction. But there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint as held by Apex court in D. Ramachandram V/s. R.V.Janakiraman and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1128. So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage. Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11- AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).
[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR. On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala. Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area. Against this applicant filed Cr.R.No.119/2016. Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt. Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules. So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police. Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate. So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.
[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal. Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case. If vehicle is kept in idle condition in the Police Station for a long period it would suffer loss. So learned Trial Court also committed mistake in not giving the vehicle in applicant's interim custody.
[5] On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the said vehicle was seized on the basis of carrying illegal sand against the order of National Green Tribunal and applicant did not file any document which shows that tractor was carrying sand on valid pass at the time of incident. So learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer.
[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.
[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.A.No.1238/2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain. Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.
After due consideration, prayer is allowed. She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.
But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.
This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
M.A.No.2308/2014
15.03.2017
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.742/2017, an application for dispensing with service of notice to respondents No.1 & 2.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application. So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.
Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed. Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.
This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Today the matter is listed for hearing on IA No.1212/2017, which is already decided by order dated 03.03.2017.
Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C. No.173/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing on 10.04.2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC. No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to keep the appellant No.2 Tejulal present before this Court positively on 05.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.150/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of respondents is still awaited. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The appeal is barred by 338 days. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.
After due consideration, application (IA No.4253/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Recovery report is still awaited. Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.
Prayer is allowed.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.723/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1120/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Vaibhav Asawa, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents even after service of notice. Record is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3.
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8095/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.03.2017 Shri L.S.Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants. Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service of notice.
Heard.
This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-. The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.
Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice. That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle. So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void. The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.
[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-
valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.
[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.
[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application. Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit. Learned Trial Court committed mistake in rejecting his application. In this regard he also placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court passed in Subhash Chand Jain V/s. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and others reported in AIR 2001 Madhya Pradesh 88 but facts of that case are distinguishable from the instant case. In that case plaintiff had filed suit for injunction for which provisions of section 7(iv) of Court Fees Act were applicable and plaintiff sought relief to restrain the defendant from recovery of amount Rs.
2,14,747/-. While in this case respondent did not seek relief to restrain the defendant from recovery of any amount but only for a declaration to get invoice prepared by the defendant worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void.
Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.
[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.
In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee. Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer. So the revision has no force. Hence, the Revision is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.158/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Indore averting that applicant is a legally wedded wife of respondent. She married with respondent on 03.04.2012 after which she lived with respondent, but behaviour of respondent and his family members was not good with her.
They demanded Five Lakh rupees and one Maruti Car as dowry and used to harass her for that. Respondent also used to drink and beated applicant and one year before filing of application respondent had expelled the applicant from his house. Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.
So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.
Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine. Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora. so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents. Respondent tried to take her back but she refused. Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself. On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.
Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.
Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.
He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement in Mannava Satyawati and others V/s. Mannava Malleswara Rao and others reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 836 and this Court's judgement Dali Bai V/s.
Rajendra Singh reported in M.P. Weekly Notes 2006 (II) Note 54.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that trial court after evaluating all the evidence rightly held that applicant had been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason so she is not entitled to get maintenance. He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 303.
[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties. As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back. But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage. So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-
behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful. Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.
Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage. Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car. Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her. She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house. If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident. So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct. Although the learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgment passed in Mannava Satyawati and others V/s. Mannava Malleswara Rao and others reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 836, in which Apex Court held that, "because the wife and children had left the house on their own, held, is no ground to disentitle them to maintenance - In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent was found to maintain his wife and children."
But the facts of that case are distinguishable, as here Hon'ble Apex Court did not hold that even when wife lived separately from her husband without any sufficient reason even then she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy V/s. Bidyut Praya Dixit and another reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 41, wherein Apex Court held that, "Not to be invoked to examine whether procedure of marriage was properly followed - Once the Magistrate is satisfied that marriage was performed - Maintenance can be granted."
This judgement also does not help the applicant as it is not on the point that whether applicant is entitled to get maintenance even after living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause.
[6] Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on this Court's judgment passed in Dali Bai V/s.
Rajendra Singh reported in M.P. Weekly Notes 2006 (II) Note 54, in which this court held that, "claim for maintenance by wife - wife deposing ill treatment on demand of dowry by husband - cruelly be beating also stated - statement is reliable to prove sufficient cause for separate living."
But facts of this case do not match with the aforementioned case. In the instant case statement of applicant regarding ill treatment and demand of dowry by husband do not appear to be correct.
[7] On the other hand counsel of the respondent placed reliance on Apex Court's judgment passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 303, wherein Apex Court held that, "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Wife having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground - Held, not entitled to the grant of maintenance
- On facts, two reasons given by respondent wife for her ill-treatment by husband, namely, his greed for dowry and that the respondent was not good- looking, held, were non-existent - Also, no other reason for ill-treatment - Facts indicating that for several years after their marriage they enjoyed normal marital relationship - Hence held, learned Magistrate rightly rejected wife's claim for maintenance."
[8] It also appeared from the statement of applicant that respondent had sent notice to her for keeping her with him. Respondent also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights which shows that respondent is ready to keep her but she herself is not living with respondent without any sufficient cause. So in the considered opinion of this court Learned trial court did not commit any mistake in arriving at the conclusion that applicant is living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason and that she is not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant. Hence this revision has no force and is hereby dismissed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.909/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of complaint and also statement recorded by the trial court under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1092/2015 10.03.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to supply the copy of document to respondent before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion state with consent of both the parties on 06.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1498/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the respondent.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1548/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10976/2015 10.03.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.824/2016 10.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4684/2016 10.03.2017 Ms. Kirti Ketke, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7977/2016 10.03.2017 Ms. Nasreen Rehman, learned counsel for the applicants.
Service report of respondents No.2 and 3 not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.83/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9484/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.163/2014 10.03.2017 Learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2372/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks time to file affidavit.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2535/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1357/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7103/2016 10.03.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case is not available.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed 22.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8915/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicants, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.116/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Kuldeep Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 3 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5654/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1425/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round. In absence of learned counsel for the parties, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.164/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
Record also not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
On 30.06.2016, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to cure the defects, but till today counsel for the applicant has not cured the defects.
Today, none present for the applicant even after second round. It appears that applicant does not want to prosecute this petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.744/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant Raghusingh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.2103/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.11/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.581/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.
Notice of respondents No.2 to 5 received unserved. Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.431/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1271/2009 10.03.2017 None present for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant not received as yet. Office is directed to place the matter along with service report of bailable warrant.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.54/2007 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on IA No.6402/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1373/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue on IA No.11476/2014, IA No.1136/2015, IA No.7168/2015 and IA No.7298/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1270/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T. No.344/2015, whereby learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts which are relevant to this petition are that on 26.06.2015, at 11.30 p.m., when complainant Indersingh was satting on dice (chabutara) of Ram Mandir with his brother Liladhar and niece Dhirajsingh at Village Jabiya Gharwas, Kalapipal, applicants came there armed with farsi, lathi and rod and abused and beated Indersingh. Applicant Mansingh assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him while Mahendrasingh assaulted on his head by rod and Raghuveer Singh, Pappu and Santosh also beated him by lathi. When complainant's brother Leeladhar came to rescue him, Hindusingh also assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him and applicants Kapal Singh, Peer Singh and Raghuveer also beated him by lathi. Indersingh and Leeladhar sustained injuries on head and other body parts. On hearing hue & cry Praveen, Narendra Singh came there and tried to save them with the help of Dheerap Singh and admitted them in the hospital. On that report of injured Indersingh Crime No.250/2015 was registered at P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicants. On that charge-
sheet ST No.344/2015 was registered and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur by order dated 05.08.2016 framed charges against applicants under 307/149 (in two counts) and 148 of IPC.
Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injuries sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar are simple in nature and not dangerous to life. In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they did not receive any bony injury, therefore, provision of Section 307 of IPC did not attract. So learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge against applicants under Section 307/34 of IPC.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Indersingh and Leeladhar received injuries by farsi on their head which is vital part of body. Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.
[5] Although according to MLC report and X-Ray report, injury sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar is not grievous or dangerous to life, but for framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
[6] The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Balram Bama Patil and others reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 331 has held that, "to justify a conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
[7] The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of State of M.P. V/s. Kashiram, reported in ILR (2009) MP 1552 (SC) also held that, "to justify conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC."
[8] It is clearly mentioned in the FIR that applicant Mansingh inflicted injury on Indersingh and Leeladhar on their head with farsi (which is a vital part of the body) with an intention to kill them. According to the MLC report, Indersingh sustained as many as 10 injuries out of which two injuries are on his head and Leeladhar also sustained three injuries of which one is on his head.
So this version coupled with the injury is prima facie sufficient to frame charge against the applicants/accused Santoshsingh, Mahendrasingh, Pirsingh, Krupalsingh Jaisingh @ Pappu, Raghuvir Singh and Mansingh under Sections 307/149 (in two counts). Learned A.S.J., Shujalpur, District Shajapur did not commit any mistake in framing charge against the applicants under Sections 307/149 (in two counts).
So, this Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
ns Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11984/2016
09.03.2017
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant along with applicant S.Kannan.
Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 Priyanka Rathod.
Learned counsel for both the parties seek time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2016, as prayed by both the parties.
Matter be listed before another Bench. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2423/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply of IA No.916/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on any Wednesday after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9433/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent No.1, even after service of notice.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.235/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.247/2017 08.03.2017 Shri D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defect.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1904/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.274/2017 08.03.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2452/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.836/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9195/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
On 06.02.2017 none present for the applicant and today also none present for the applicant even after second round. It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1143/2014 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant and respondent No.1, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar where by learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached with in interim custody seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.
[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garrage, on the way near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR. On that FIR Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala. Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involving in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area. Against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.119/2016.
Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt. Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision by observing that according to Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for taking vehicle into custody but it appears from the record that no intimation was sent by the applicant under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules. So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application. Hence, petition is dismissed.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules apply place when the vehicle seized by the authority mentioned in Section 53 Sub Rule 2 of Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 while vehicle seized by the police. So the provision of Section 53(3) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules does not apply in the case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly observing that because no information was sent by the authority under Section 53 Sub Rule 2 of Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, so (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.88/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Manish Sankhla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 6 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.435/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3984/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.16968/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore arising out of Crime No.79/2011 of Police Station Aerodrome, Indore.
Let the matter be listed along with status report after two weeks, as prayed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.900/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.915/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.615/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.916/2016 08.03.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sachin Tenguriya, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply the copy of judgment of trial court to the counsel for the respondent.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1218/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4708/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1149/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file affidavit of technical person, who is aware of the technology relating to the working of computer.
Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.10053/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1119/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Chetan Naik, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12709/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding illegal detention of applicant after undergoing the whole sentence awarded by the court in S.T.No.27/2003.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch vide judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003 convicted the accused for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. Against that judgment applicant filed Cr.A.No.1072/2007 before this Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.07.2015 and this Court partly allowed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act awarded by the Trial Court but reduced the sentence from one year to six months awarded by the Trial Court in default of payment of fine.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has undergone whole sentence even then jail authorities of District Jail, Neemuch have not released the applicant/accused. So, Jailor of District Jail, Neemuch be directed to release the accused.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during trial applicant remained in detention from 28.09.2005 to 05.03.2007 in other Sessions Case No.09/07 in Central Jail at Arthor Road Jail, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra). No written information regarding that detention has been received as yet from the said Jail. So applicant could not be released.
[5] On this, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if that period is not considered in detention period even then applicant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003.
[6] Considering the aforesaid, the Jail Superintendent District Jail, Neemuch is directed that if the applicant Mohammad Iqbal has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003, excluding the period for which he was detained in other Special Sessions Case No.09/2007 then he be released, if not required in any other case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8748/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the non applicant.
Heard finally at motion stage. [1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in brief "Code") against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.564/15; whereby learned Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and directed him to take cognizance against applicants for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC .
[2] Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint against the applicants under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC alleging that the applicants had published defamatory news against the non- applicant/complainant. Learned Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence learned Judge observing that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant, dismissed the complaint. Against that order non-applicant filed Criminal Revision No.564/2015 which was disposed of by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by order dated 16.09.2015 without giving notice to the applicant and by the impugned order allowed the revision and set aside the Magistrate's order observing that prima facie there was sufficient evidence in the complaint to take cognizance against the applicant under Section 499, 500, 501, 502 and 503 of the IPC and directed the learned Magistrate to take appropriate action against the applicant in this regard. Being aggrieved from that order applicants have filed this petition.
[3] Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code the Revisional Court should not pass any adverse order unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the accused, but the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants, therefore, the order is not sustainable in law. For this purpose placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another V/s. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 144. wherein apex court held as under :-
"If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. The Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204, yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence."
[5] In the present case Revisional Court has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants as provided under Section 401(2) of the Code. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in law, therefore, the order is hereby set aside without considering the merits and the matter is sent back to the Revisional Court with the direction to decide the revision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants.
[6] Both parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 17.04.2017.
A copy of the order be sent to the Revisional Court as well as to the concerned Magistrate for compliance.
Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ns M.Cr.C.No.2098/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for applicant on 06.05.2016, 16.07.2016 & 01.08.2016 and on 29.08.2016 applicant seeks adjournment, then on 06.09.2016 none present for the applicant, thereafter on 28.11.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017 none present for the applicant. On 31.01.2017 applicant seeks adjournment and today also none present for the applicant even in the second round. It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7084/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicants, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.840/2010 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11666/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply of IA No.10059/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.196/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to file Annexures.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to file Annexures within 7 days.
On filing of Annexures, issue notice to the respondent within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.267/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1302/2008 07.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.2 Akhilesh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1980/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant No.2 Akhilesh on 20.02.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant No.2 Akhilesh on 20.02.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 18.07.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1414/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8774/2013 07.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks three weeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4259/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed 28.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on that ground.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12041/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13029/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.29/2017 07.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.266/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel comes from Delhi and prays for a fixed date in the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.404/2017 07.03.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.410/2017 07.03.2017 Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.970/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Harshit sethi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Deepak Raval, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.649/2007 07.03.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report, bailable warrant of respondent No.2 Dilip received unserved.
Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 28.04.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.400/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No.62/2016, whereby Learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC..
[2] As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2015, at 5.30 p.m., when complainant Omprakash and his family members were working in the field situated at Rajgarh near National High Way 12, applicants came there armed with lathi and farsi and applicant Ramprasad assaulted Omprakash on his head by farsi with an intention to kill him while Hukum Singh assaulted on Omprakash's hand by lathi and Kanchanbhai by stone. When complainant's son Jaiprakash came to rescue him Ramprasad inflicted farsi blow on Jaiprakash's head and other applicants also beated them. On that report Crime No.617/2015 in P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh was registered under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the court and on the basis of charge-sheet S.T.No.62/2016 was registered and then learned A.S.J. framed charges against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants No.2 Kanchanbhai No.3 Hukum Singh & Vishram Singh under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the orders of framing charges under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC applicants have filed this Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report, injuries sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash are simple in nature and not dangerous to life. In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they have not received any bony injury, therefore, there is no evidence on record to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC. Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Omprakash and Jaiprakash received incised wounds by farsi on their head which is vital part of body. Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.
[5] For framing of charge strong suspicion about commission of offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient. On merits, materials/documents filed by accused can not be considered. Material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered. Roving inquiry and mini trial is not permissible. Defence of accused is not relevant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement passed in Hemchand V/s. State of Jharkhand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 held that at the stage of framing of charge, Court exercises a limited jurisdiction. It has to see whether prima facie case has been made out or not?
Concern of the Court should be to see whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation. Although according to MLC and X-Ray report, injury sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash is not grievous, but for framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Balram Bama Patil and others reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 331 has held that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of State of M.P. V/s. Kashiram, reported in ILR (2009) MP 1552 (SC) also held that to justify conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact.
The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC.
[5] It is clearly mentioned in the FIR that applicant Ramprasad inflicted injury on Omprakash and Jayprakash with farsi on their head (which is a vital part of the body) with an intention to kill them. So this version coupled with the injury is prima facie sufficient to frame charge against the applicants/accused Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and other applicants under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. Learned A.S.J., Rajgarh (Biaora) did not commit any mistake in framing charge against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.
So, this Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.92/2014 22.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns 07.03.2017 Order passed signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.316/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.278/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the case diary. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.622/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.682/2017 06.03.2017 Shri J.P.Kero, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1941/2017 06.03.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is also directed to produce the case diary.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1995/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2124/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce case diary positively before the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce registration of vehicle and other necessary documents.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2439/2017 06.03.2017 Shri Bhimsen Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal Case No.616/2013, which is disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar - Malwa by judgment dated 28.11.2016 before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on 24.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.652/2006 06.03.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2327/2007 to the counsel for the appellant.
Let the matter be listed after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.869/2011 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file rejoinder.
Prayer is allowed.
He is directed to file rejoinder positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 06.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.15/2016 06.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Both the parties are directed to remain present before this court on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.44/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.702/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Ms. Sheetal Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5seeks time to file reply of IA No.5438/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1613/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondents is still awaited. Office is directed to produce the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.
Office is directed to send back the record to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016 06.03.2017 Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.17/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri M.R.Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.9.
Office is directed to place the service report of respondents No.1 to 8 and legal representatives of respondent No.11 before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. I.R. to continue.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 06.03.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.765/2001 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tulsibai before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to keep the appellant No.2 Tulsibai present before this Court positively on 28.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tulsibai.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.895/2000 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Karulal before this court.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to keep the appellant No.2 Karulal present before this Court positively on 28.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Karulal.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9742/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally at motion stage. This leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.3517/2001, whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC.
[2] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is clearly proved that at the time of accident respondent/accused rashly and negligently drove the vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-K-7976 and dashed against Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries and one of them died. From the statement of Tarachand (PW-2) it is also proved that at the time of accident vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar. So, learned trial court committed mistake in acquitting the accused Mazhar from the aforesaid charge.
[3] On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is not proved that driver of the vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving said vehicle rashly and negligently, at the time of incident. Also it is not proved that vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was being driven by the respondent at the time of accident. Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that respondent Mazhar was the driver on said vehicle on the date of accident but he is not an eye witness of the incident so only on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident. So, learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and pray for rejection.
[4] This court perused the record and considered arguments put forth by the parties. Hemsingh (PW-1) only stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed and dashed against the Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries but he did not specifically deposed in his statement that as to at what speed the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven at the time of accident. So, only on the basis of statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) that driver of vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident. Hemsingh (PW-1), who is an eye witness of the incident, did not even depose that the said vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident. So, from his statement it is also not proved that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.
[5] Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that on the date of accident respondent Mazhar was the driver on his vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 but he is not an eye witness, so without any other corroborating evidence merely on the basis of his statement it cannot be assumed that the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar at the time of accident. So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused from the aforesaid charge. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this order. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1558/2016 03.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.958/2017, which is an application for conversion of this Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.
After due consideration, application (IA No.958/2017) is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.
After incorporation of necessary amendments, office is directed to register this Criminal Revision as a Criminal Appeal.
Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.397/2013 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.
Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2997/2013 and IA No.2998/2013 to the counsel for the respondents.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1250/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Record is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on 27.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11362/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.221/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.537/2017 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 03.03.2017 Shri B.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of order-sheets of criminal case.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.3095/2010 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Notice of respondent No.2 received unserved. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1783/2013 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.720/2014 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.950/2015 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1121/2016 03.03.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.9384/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The revision is barred by 13days. After due consideration, application (IA No.9384/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5672/2016 03.03.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7697/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Priya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7863/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8510/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9386/2016 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11943/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.679/2017 02.03.2017 Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Deepak Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.185/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent No.1, even after service of notice.
Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3.
In absence of respondent No.1 matter is adjourned. Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.857/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.
Service report of respondent No.1 is still awaited. Office is directed to list the matter along with service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.9/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
Lower court record is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
I.R. to continue.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2340/2014 02.03.2017 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.547/2017, an application for dispensing with service of notice to respondents No.1 & 2.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 not appeared before the trial court and remained ex-party to the trial court. So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 be dispensed with.
Notice of respondent No.1 has already been served. So, this application is partly allowed for respondent No.2. Service of notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.
Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1450/2015 02.03.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to verify the factum of death of applicant Mukesh.
Office is also directed to call for report regarding death of applicant Mukesh from Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1575/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Asif Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.555/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1103/2015 02.03.2017 Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.
Status report of MJC (Criminal) Case No.15/2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas is still awaited.
Office is directed to call the status report positively on the next date of hearing.
The matter is wrongly listed for hearing on IA No.2883/2016. That IA has already been decided by order dated 29.06.2016.
Let the matter be listed along with the status report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2248/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Session Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar rejected applicant's Criminal Revision No.111/2016 and maintained the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in Criminal Case No.49/2016, wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant for dishonor of cheque averting that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and out of that friendship when petitioner was in need of money, respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to him. In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent. When the cheque given by the petitioner was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds. So action be taken against applicant. On that complaint Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and registered complaint as Criminal Case No.49/2016.
[3] During trial of the case applicant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. averting that though respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence regarding that amount so respondent be directed to file all documents relating to his income, expenditure and income tax return. In his reply respondent opposed the prayer. Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.09.2016 rejected that application observing that application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was not maintainable at that stage against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.111/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar observing that the impugned order was an interim order against which the Revision is not maintainable. Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner averting that respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner. In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent. When the said cheque was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds. Applicant wants to cross-examine the respondent on the point that whether respondent actually has the capacity to give Rs.20,00,000/- to the applicant for which documents regarding income and expenditure and his income tax return are required. so they be called from the applicant. Learned trial court committed mistake in rejecting his application.
[5] It appears from the record that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant averting that applicant took Rs.20,00,000/- from him and to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent. So prima facie burden for proving this fact lies on respondent and what documents he wish to file to prove this fact depends upon his will. In his application applicant has not mentioned the year/years for which he sought respondent's income tax return and regarding what documents or for what period he wants income and expenditure details of respondent. His application is vague, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application. Hence, petition is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.132/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.1006/2016, which is an application for stay.
On due consideration, IA No.1006/2016 is allowed and execution of the award under challenge is stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of two months from today.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7176/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay process fee.
Prayer allowed.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.471/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent not received as yet. Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.805/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State seeks time to file reply of IA No.9919/16 and IA No.8568/16.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.933/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.
None present for the respondents No.1 to 5, even after service of notice.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Soumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 01.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing. C.c. today.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2237/2016 01.03.2017 Shri S. Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2266/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of statement of prosecutrix and wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1295/2012 01.03.2017 Shri R.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the report from the Central Jail, Indore regarding detention of appellant Hemu @ Hemant.
Let the matter be listed in the next week along with the report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12630/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Namdev, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to issue notice to the respondents within 3 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3685/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing. C.c. today.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.122/2000 01.03.2017 None present for the appellant, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
On 13.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and 22.02.17 none present for the appellant even in the second round. It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.212/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay process fee for the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode.
Prayer is allowed.
Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.700/2016 01.03.2017 Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1223/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage with consent of both the parties on 15.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1515/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1595/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1599/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Sachin Subnis, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Sadhna Nehlani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that connected Cr.R.No.214/2017 be listed along with this petition.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.214/2017 after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6381/2016 01.03.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11372/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to place the report regarding FR filed before the trial court or not.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8930/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Sachin Sabnis, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri R.L.Badjatia, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Counsel for the applicants is directed to supply copy of petition and documents to respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9325/2016 01.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12844/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.65/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.173/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Kratik Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.191/2017 01.03.2017 Ms. Manisha Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1549/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1600/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1054/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9429/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10882/2015 01.03.2017 Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2016 01.03.2017 Shri S.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.594/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondents. In absence of learned counsel for the respondents, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9205/2015 28.02.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur in Cr.R.No.298/2014, whereby learned A.S.J. set aside the order dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in Criminal Case No.694/2014 registered on a private complaint filed by the applicant, whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent and for others for the offence under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to this petition are that, applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent before the J.M.F.C., Mahidpur, Ujjain averting that marriage of his daughter Heena was solemnized with respondent Firoz on 09.02.2013 at Mahidpur. In the marriage he gave jewellery, cloths, electric goods, almirah, fridge, T.V., washing machine, a cooler and other home appliances worth Rs.3,50,000/- to his daughter. On 20.04.2013, respondent Firoz gave divorce to his daughter Heena but he did not return the aforesaid house-hold goods, which he gave to his daughter as dowry at the time of marriage. So cognizance be taken against the respondent and six other persons under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On complaint learned Judicial Magistrate First Class recorded statement of applicant and her witness Usman Khan, Vaseem under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and by order dated 17.05.2014 took cognizance against respondent and four others under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Being aggrieved from that order respondent Firoz filed Cr.R.No.2098/14. That Revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur by order dated 12.05.2015 wherein it set aside the trial court's order observing that applicant's daughter Heena voluntarily left her matrimonial house in the night of 19.03.2013 and she clearly admitted in a letter that she does not want to live with respondent Firoz. She wanted to live with Nilesh Suryawanshi and also admitted that respondent Firoz Khan had voluntarily given divorce to her and she had received all house-hold goods which were given by her father as dowry. So offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent. Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed this petition.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad respondent himself promised to return the house-hold goods which were given by the applicant as dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but he did not do so. The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Revisional Court alleging given by Heena is fake. Learned A.S.J. committed mistake in rejecting the trial court's order by relying on that fake affidavit.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a list of articles which were given in dowry at the time of marriage should be made but there is no such list. So it cannot be said that applicant gave aforesaid articles in dowry to her daughter. On the contrary Heena at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad clearly admitted before the Police Officers that she got all articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage. So no question of returning the articles arises. Learned A.S.J. rightly rejected the applicant's prayer.
[5] First of all applicant himself averted in the application that he gave house-hold goods and other articles to her daughter in her marriage. So those articles are the property of her daughter and not the applicant. According to Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under :-
Section 6 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.--
(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman-- --(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman--"
(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage; or
(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; or
(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within 1[three months] after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. 2[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 3[or as required by sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years or with fine 4[which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.] 1[(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-
section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, 2[or as required by sub-section (3),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years or with fine 3[which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees] or with both.]"
(3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being:
3[Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall,-- 2[Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall,--"
(a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or
(b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children.] 5[(3A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) 3[or sub-section (3)] has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children] the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub- section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children] within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children]. 4[(3A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) 2[or sub-section (3)] has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, 5[her heirs, parents or children] the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be, 5[her heirs, parents or children] within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be, 5[her heirs, parents or children]." (4) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of section 3 or section 4.
This shows that where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to that woman within three months.
[6] But the complaint has not been filed by Heena in whose marriage the aforesaid articles were allegedly given. She also did not appear before the court to give her statement that respondent did not return the articles back to her. Along with the complaint applicant also filed a copy of the notice given by him to the respondent before filing of complaint wherein it is mentioned that a list of articles given to the respondent at the time of marriage was prepared, but no such list was produced by the applicant before the court. The complainant filed complaint against nine persons alleging that all of them received the gifts given to Heena at the time of marriage. It is incredible that all the nine persons together received the gift items while in the notice it is mentioned that all gifts were received by respondent Firoz which is contradictory so in the opinion of this court learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake in rejecting the trial court's order. Hence, petition is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.224/2017 28.01.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.
Case diary perused and arguments heard. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Bail Application No.16/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Mohammad Zeeshan S/o Mohammad Anees under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.28/2017 registered at Police Station-A.J.K., Jhabua, District- Jhabua for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage. He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-. On 24.01.2017, at 1.00 p.m., at Meghnagar Bus Stand, when she asked appellant to marry her, he refused and abused her and clearly stated that he can't marry her. When she told appellant that she will lodge a report, he threatened to kill her. On that report, Crime No.28/17 was registered for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During investigation police arrested appellant on 25.01.2017. The appellant filed Bail Application No.16/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for getting bail. Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua rejected that application. Being aggrieved appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant is major and she is a consenting party. She has wrongly lodged the report against the appellant. Appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime. Charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, counsel prayed for grant of bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant/prosecutrix opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that complainant was minor at the time of starting of the incident and that appellant sexually exploited her for last two years on the pretext of marriage and pray for rejection.
[5] Looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time and that on the date of lodging report prosecutrix was major so without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
[6] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Accordingly, Cr.A. No.224/2017 is disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1176/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard on IA No.8886/2016, which is an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for service of summon on respondent No.3 by paper publication.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of summon on respondent No.3 has not been effected by ordinary process. Respondent No.3 is avoiding the service of summon so as to delay the case. So, summon be issued on respondent No.3 by way of publication.
After due consideration, application is allowed. On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.3 by way of publication in the local newspaper published in the local area in Indore where respondent No.3 is said to be resided.
Counsel for the appellant is also directed to supply copy of documents to respondents No.1 & 2, as prayed.
Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.938/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1640/2017, which is an application to add complainant Saradar Mohammad as party to the petition memo.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the petition memo. After adding name of complainant in the petition memo, on payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.344/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.141/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Record is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12636/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.289/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Prafulla Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 28.02.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohara, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.75/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.230/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.699/2017 28.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1411/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1706/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9548/2014 28.02.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.859/2016 28.02.2017 Parties through their counsel. Matter is wrongly listed today. Matter is already admitted, therefore, let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 21.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1614/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to cure the defect.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2231/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Service report of respondents No.1 to 7 is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10576/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay fresh process fee.
Prayer is allowed.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 7 days.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.113/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.214/2016 22.02.2017 Shri K.K. Koushal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2015, whereby he rejected the applicant's/defendent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.6-A/2015 before the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of applicant from the part of suit house and in alternative for seeking a declaration to declare them owner of that part of the suit house and also declaring that part of the suit house in dangerous state and that it be demolished after eviction of applicant averting that respondents are the owner of the suit house No.181 situated at Netaji Nagar, Indore. In the back side of the suit house No.181 two rooms and kitchen were built in 14x20=280 sq.ft. Area, which was given by the respondents on rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant in the year 1993 by an oral agreement. The applicant had not paid rent since 21.05.2013. In the year 2010 Municipal Corporation also gave a notice to the respondents that the said construction is in dangerous state and can't be used for human dwelling. That being so, applicant was directed to give vacant possession of that part of suit house to respondents and pay arrears of rent.
[3] During trial of the suit applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averting that the land of suit house was given to applicant's mother Munni Bai by the State Government on lease so the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act would not apply on the suit land. Respondents also did not file any documentary evidence showing that the respondent is owner while applicant is a tenant in his suit house, so respondents' suit is not maintainable. Even otherwise on one hand respondents filed a suit averting that applicant is a tenant in the suit house and for his eviction from the suit house and also for getting arrears of rent while on the other hand applicant sought that he be declared owner of the suit house and it be declared in a dangerous stage and a mandatory injunction be issued against the applicant to vacate the suit house which is contradictory so suit is not maintainable.
[4] Learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that respondents sought contradictory relief. To decide other objections it requires evidence which cannot be decided at this stage. Being aggrieved of that order applicant filed this Revision.
[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court has committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application without appreciating the fact that the respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit and that without amending pleading of the suit, the same is not maintainable.
[6] Respondents in their reply opposed the prayer.
[7] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. Although it appears from the averment of the plaint that respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit but the suit cannot be rejected only on that ground that there is no such provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Likewise the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that respondent has not filed any documentary evidence showing his ownership or landlordship over suit property. It is a matter of evidence so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant. Hence, the revision is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1397/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.
As per office report, notice of respondent No.2 received unserved for want of correct address.
Respondents No.1 and 3 are served. Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved. Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 15 days.
Issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 4 on payment of process fee within 15 days, returnable within six weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 27.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to file copy of charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7281/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file copy of private complaint and statements record by the trial court on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1704/2015 27.02.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.45/2006 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellant.
None present for the respondents, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.84/2016 27.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicants even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.704/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Usha Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1506/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.231/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7096/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel along with Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.349/2017 27.02.2017 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.131/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1356/2014 27.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.857/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1283/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1518/2016 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1570/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7743/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8500/2016 27.02.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defect.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.102/2017 27.02.2017 Ms. Prachi Pagare, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1443/2017 27.02.2017 Shri M.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1536/2017 27.02.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2074/2017 27.02.2017 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. It appears from the order of trial court that he issued arrest warrant to secure presence of the applicant in Criminal Case No.1614/2016. The order of trial court has been stayed till the next date of hearing.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2143/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of whole complainant and copy of statement recorded by the trial court on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.375/2009 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing presence of respondent on furnishing correct particulars along with process fee within within 7 days, returnable within 8 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after eight weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.621/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
Admitted.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.627/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it has wrongly been mentioned in order dated 21.10.2016 that respondent No.1 has expired.
Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9393/2011 27.02.2017 Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1126/2007 22.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already suffered sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, he does not want to press his appeal.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1029/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.
Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?
Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1266/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.
Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?
Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1901/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Tribhuvan Kulmi, learned counsel for the applicant.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.R. No.256/16.
By the common order dated 24.12.2016 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain decided Cr.R. No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.R. No.256/16, which were separately filed by the applicant against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Criminal Case No.4898/15, Criminal Case No.4272/15, Criminal Case No.2242/15, Criminal Case No.4273/15 and Criminal Case No.2241/15. So office is directed to examine whether one single petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Five different Criminal Revisions.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1611/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in M.Cr.C.No.200/2015, whereby he allowed the application of respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents filled an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Rajgarh for directing the applicant to pay maintenance averting that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of applicant and respondents No.2 and 3 are his sons. Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.
Applicant used to demand dowry and subjected her to cruelty, due to which respondent No.1 is living with her parents along with her minor children i.e. respondents No.2 and 3.
Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons. Applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns Rs.40,000/- per month.
He also runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and earns Rs.30,000/- per month. He is also having 10 shops at Kota and earning Rs.50,000/- per month as rent from those shops and he is able to maintain his wife and children but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause, so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.
[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegations levelled by the respondents in his application and averted that he never demanded dowry from respondent No.1 and never harassed her. Respondent No.1 herself is voluntarily living with her mother without any cause.
She is working as a Teacher in R.K.Academy, Biaora and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself and her children, while applicant is a Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns only Rs.17,685/- per month and his parents also depend on him. Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.
[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observed that respondent No.1 is having sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is not able to maintain herself and her children while applicant is able to maintain respondents but has refused to do so, therefore, he directed the applicant to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to each respondent. Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[5] Only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side.
He submits that it is clearly established from the evidence produced by the applicant that applicant earlier worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he left that job and presently has no means of earning so he is not able to maintain respondents.
[6] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant himself in his reply admitted that he works as Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.17,685/- per month. The Certificate (Ex.D/1) filed by the applicant is not correct. It is clear from the record that applicant is having many means of earning. He runs one talkies and also has many shops in the market and earns much and is able to pay Rs.15,000/-
maintenance as awarded by the learned Trial Court.
[7] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties. Learned trial court itself in Para 22 of its judgment held that applicant earns Rs.17,685/-
per month as salary but it awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which is clearly on higher side. Although respondent No.1 Dipika Chourasiya deposed that applicant runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan). He is also having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) and also has one house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor, which earns him rent. But applicant in his statement clearly denied the fact that he runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) or has any house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor which earns him rent.
[8] Respondents have not filed any document which shows that applicant possess the aforementioned immovable property. So respondents' statement that applicant is having the aforesaid immovable property and he is earning from that property does not appeared to be true. Likewise although respondent No.1 stated that applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and applicant also admitted in his reply that he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he got only Rs.17,685/- per month as salary from that job. Respondents have not filed any documentary evidence which shows that applicant's salary is Rs.40,000/- per month.
[9] Although applicant in his statement deposed that earlier he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but form 15.11.2015 he has left his job and also filed Ex.D/1 resignation letter from that job. But it is clear that respondents filed application for maintenance on 22.06.2015. Applicant filed reply of respondents' application on 10.08.2015 in which he clearly admitted that he works at Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and got a salary of Rs.17,685/-. Although on the stage of his evidence on 18.11.2016 applicant filed Ex.D/1 showing that he resigned from the said service from 15.11.2015 but has not produced the person, who gave Certificate (Ex.D/1) in this regard, so this Certificate is not believable. Even otherwise it appears strange that he left his job at the time of evidence without any cause so it is incredible and does not appear to be correct.
[10] So from the evidence produced by the parties applicant's income appears only as Rs.17,685/- per month. Learned trial court also in Para 22 of his judgment held that applicant's income is Rs.17,685/- per month. In these circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side looking to the income of applicant. So it is appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.
[11] Hence, Revision is partly allowed and applicant is directed to pay a maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial court. Remaining conditions of the trial court's order shall remain same. Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12005/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.3022/2011 22.02.2017 Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6771/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.41/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.
Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicants even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11408/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Kailash Sajoniya, learned counsel for the applicants.
None present for the respondents, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1085/2015 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.268/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1872/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1417/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1067/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.S.Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Gaurav Ravat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 9.
None present for the respondents No.10 to 20 even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 9seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1920/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2016, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1174/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1338/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 22.02.2017 None for the applicant.
Ms. Poornima Kanoongo, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1743/2016 22.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course. Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5739/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that he has cured the defect as pointed out by the office.
Office to verify and thereafter list the matter in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8855/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Shivdatt Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Office is directed to call for the record of the trial court.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on 15.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Issue notice to the respondents No.2 to 4 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.33/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.42/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing otherwise concerned S.H.O. shall remain present in person before the court.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.129/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Arti Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2017 22.02.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing otherwise concerned S.H.O. shall remain present in person before the court.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Office is also directed to call for the explanation from the concerned S.H.O. as to why the case diary is not being sent till date.
Let the matter be listed along with the case diary on 09.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.238/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.776/2017 22.02.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017 22.02.2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1214/2017 22.02.2017 Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1338/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the parties seek time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1245/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has filed copy of Handwriting Expert's report, alleged suicide note and copy of charge-sheet, which are taken on record.
It appears that applicant has not filed whole copy of charge-sheet, so applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.72/2006 21.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants.
None present for the legal representative No.2 of respondent No.4 and for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.5, even after service of notice by publication.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1549/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12888/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11144/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.140/2017 21.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.116/2017 21.02.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.493/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Mohd. Gaffar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rampal Uaike, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1583/2014 21.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.386/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and also seeks time to produce the complainant before the court regarding compromise application.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
Record of the Trial Court has not been received as yet.
Office is directed to issue reminder. Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1042/2014 21.02.2017 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1632/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.518/2016 21.02.2017 Shri A.K.Chitle, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the respondents.
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is again sent to the mediation. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya tomorrow at 5.00 p.m.. Parties are also directed to co- operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.
Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya is directed to submit her report after mediation process.
Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017 along with the Mediator's report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.824/2016 21.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1029/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to supply the copy of documents annexed with the petition to the counsel for the respondent.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 09.03.2017, with consent of both the parties.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1422/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondents, even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10446/2016 21.02.2017 None for the applicants.
Shri S.S.Dewda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.108/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.881/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.103/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.249/2015 21.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.934/2015 21.02.2017 Shri R.K.Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Devendra Kirtane, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue on IA No.7/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1069/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel from the applicant. Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Kaushiyal Malya, learned counsel for the complainant.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District - Rajgarh, in Criminal Case No.13/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Gopal S/o Shankarlal Jat under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station - Malawar, District - Rajagarh for the offence under Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(B)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (further refer as "Act").
[2] As per prosecution story, on 30.08.2016, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal averting that appellant Gopal is threatening her since 1½ years and keeps asking her to come to his field otherwise he would kill her husband. In the month of August, 2016 four days before Rakhi between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m., when she went in Gopal's field for taking kanda (dung cake) Gopal caught her and raped her and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody. She narrated the incident to her husband, who asked Gopal as to why he raped his wife, on which Gopal abused them and also tried to kill her husband. On this Police of P.S. A.J.K., Bhopal sent report to P.S. Malawar, Distt Rajgarh, where Police registered Crime No.184/2016 for the offence under Section 376, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and investigated the matter. During investigation it was found that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant Gopal. In these circumstances, Police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the court of Special Judge, Rajgarh. On that report Special Judge Rajgarh took cognizance against the appellant and registered Special Case No.13/2017 and issued arrest warrant for securing the presence of appellant in the case. Learned Special Judge also rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. observing that from the case diary it prima facie appeared that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and got FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) filed in this case using his influence. From the case diary, provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act get attracted.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant to harass him. During investigation, from the statement of prosecutrix herself it appeared that prosecutrix filed false report against him, so police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the crime. Learned Trial Judge wrongly took cognizance against the appellant and issued warrant and that provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted from the case diary and prayed for anticipatory bail.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer.
[5] Learned counsel of the prosecutrix submitted that he has no objection if the court allows the bail of appellant.
[6] Although Crime No.184/2016 was also registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 3(1)(B) (2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and according to Section 18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed :-
"Section 18 of the Atrocities Act gives a vision, direction and mandate to the Court as to the cases where the anticipatory bail must be refused, but it does not and it certainly cannot whisk away the right of any Court to have a prima facie judicial scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint. Nor can it under its hunch permit provisions of law being abused to suit the mala fide motivated ends of some unscrupulous complainant."
[7] Apex Court also in Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held that :-
"The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record, which shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out."
[8] From Perusal of case diary and documents filed by the appellant it appears that prosecutrix lodged the F.I.R. Fifteen days after the incident and during investigation complainant herself in her statement said that appellant Gopal has not committed any act with her, even in her statement before the Court recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. prosecutrix deposed that appellant had not committed rape with her. Besides that, before this Court also, learned counsel of the prosecutrix expressed no objection on grant of bail to the appellant. Even in the final report Police also mentioned that no case was made out against the appellant. in these circumstance, from the case diary, prima facie no case is made out against the appellant.
[9] So appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail, his appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh, in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued by the learned Special Judge Rajgarh or if he surrenders before Special Judge Rajgarh in S.T. No.13/2017 the present appellant namely Gopal Jat S/o Shankarlal Jat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Atrocity, Rajgarh. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The appellant will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the Trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.
Accordingly, Cr.A.No.120/2017 is disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.583/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1803/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1885/2017 20.02.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1441/2015 20.02.2017 None present from the applicant. Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1053/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1247/2016 20.02.2017 Petitioner Ravi Kumar Potdar present in person. Shri L.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1378/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to comply with the order dated 31.01.2017.
Prayer allowed. Only one week's time is granted. He is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- before the trial court towards expenses to be incurred by the respondent in defending herself in this petition positively.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1552/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pankaj R.Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4708/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Office is directed to call for the record. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7607/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11142/2016 20.02.2017 Shri H.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. None present for the respondents. In absence of learned counsel for the respondents matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Praveen Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed 03.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12287/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Ajay Bagdiya, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed 02.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12971/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.
Case diary is available.
Heard on IA No.470/2017, which is an application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned counsel for the respondent/State in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2017 20.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.196/2017 20.02.2017 Smt. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.294/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Vineet Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record of Cr.R.No.453/2015 disposed of by the Second Additional District Judge, Mhow, District Indore by order dated 17.06.2016.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Mukesh Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Mukesh Jadhav, learned counsel seeks time to file power on behalf of respondent No.2.
Prayer is allowed.
Counsel for the applicants is also directed to file the copy of charge-sheet and present status of the case.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.975/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file the reply of the petition on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1891/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mayank Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.672/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2..
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10928/2015 20.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent No.1. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3552/2016 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5644/2016 20.02.2017 Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 17.03.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.243/2014 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.239/2015 20.02.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
Record of the trial court is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.313/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1813/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
On 18.10.2016, learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment and on 31.01.2017 also none present for the applicant even in the second round. It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7539/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the status report of Crime No.161/2013 of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and case diary of the case.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.793/2016 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1892/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed 06.03.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1149/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 17.02.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1334/2010 17.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Ramsingh is not present. Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of respondent Ramsingh before this court on 05.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1838/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per report of non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Jitendra Mukhi, appellant is in custody in District Jail Phulwani (Orisa).
Office is directed to issue production warrant to secure the presence of appellant Jitendra Mukhi on 10.04.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.348/2015 17.02.2017 Shri P.Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.3 Mohan is not present. Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of appellant No.3 Mohan before this court.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.532/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce applicant Sohan before this court.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to keep the applicant Sohan present before this Court positively on 07.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the applicant Sohan.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1020/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil before this court.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to keep the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil present before this Court positively on 07.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.284/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 17.02.2017 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the intervener.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2017, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.26/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10371/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1275/2016 17.02.2017 Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1028/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press IA No.9052/2016, therefore, the application (IA No.9052/2016) is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1331/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1409/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1577/2016 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 17.02.2017 Shri V.Asava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4549/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9391/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anuj Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11593/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13038/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.484/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks. Meanwhile, applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.780/2017 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1080/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Record is not received as yet. Office is directed to issue reminder. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1434/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply of IA No.286/2017.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to verify the factum of death of applicant No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Khandelwal positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.492/2015 17.02.2017 Shri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Priya Mahim Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1222/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Gopal Aanjana, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.3466/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The appeal is barred by 246 days. After due consideration, application (IA No.3466/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.825/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant Suresh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1257/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant Suresh on 03.02.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant on 03.02.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10551/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Pawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent. Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.619/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr. M.J.C. No.2/2006, whereby he rejected the applicant's prayer that since he has already undergone whole sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine so recovery proceedings be not carried out against the applicant.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque. On the complaint Criminal Case No.1801/2001 was registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and after trial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore found applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, against which applicant filed Cr.A.No.397/2004. That appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by judgment dated 29.09.2004 and affirmed the order of Trial Judge, against which applicant has also filed Cr.Rev. No.777/2004 in this court which was also rejected by this court by order dated 24.08.2005 and the judgment of the Trial Judge became final. Applicant has undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
[3] After that respondent filed Cr. M.J.C. No.2/2006 to procure the compensation amount from the applicant. During prosecution of this case applicant filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore averting that because applicant has undergone one month's RI in default of payment of fine so the recovery proceedings of compensation amount cannot be carried out against the applicant.
[4] Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore rejected the prayer observing that even after undergoing the sentence in default of payment of compensation court issued recovery warrant against the applicant for recovering of compensation amount, against which applicant filed Cr.R. No.619/2016, which also was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this petition.
[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that because applicant has already undergone sentence awarded by the Trial Court in default of payment of compensation amount so the compensation amount cannot be procured from the applicant.
[6] He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in Ramnath V/s. Jagdish Prasad Garg and another reported in 2000 Bank J. 29, in which court held that, "Petitioner having already undergone the punishment awarded minus the fine; petition becomes infructuous as no other mode of realisation of amount under criminal law is provided. Complainant may if he desires file civil suit for recovery."
But in that case point whether the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and so recovery proceeding be not carried out was not in issue that Criminal Revision was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court against him.
Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision regarding this issue.
Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :
421. Warrant for levy of fine.
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.
(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.
[7] Even in the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in Y.Vishnu V/s. Venkatesh reported in 2007 (1) DCR 18, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant held as under :
"Section 421 of Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine by one of the two ways or by both of them. One way of recovery is to issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender. The second mode of recovery is to issue a warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue. Where the offender undergoes the whole of the imprisonment in default of payment of fine, before recovery or before issuance of warrant for recovery, no such warrant can be issued, unless the Court assigns special reasons as to how despite the accused undergoing default sentence, there is necessity of recovering fine. However, there is an exception to this rule that is, if the recovery is for realising expenses of the complainant or the compensation awarded under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the power of the Court to issue warrant for recovery of that amount, continues even after the accused undergoes the default sentence in full."
[8] So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in issuing recovery warrant to procure the fine amount from applicant. Hence, petition is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.466/2007 15.02.2017 Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants.
None for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.
Heard on IA No.1084/2017, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan.
After due consideration application (IA No.1084/17) is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan from appeal memo.
Necessary corrections be made out in the cause title.
Appeal is already admitted, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7010/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file the reply of the petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8930/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Sachin Sabnis, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri R.L.Badjatia, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of charges framed by the trial court against the applicant.
Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12034/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file certified copy of the order passed by this court in another case between the same parties. He is directed to file the document within one week.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.27/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.28558/2014 pending before the learned ACJM, Indore be stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.79/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.367/2017, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of trial court.
After due consideration (IA No.367/2017) is allowed.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks, along with the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply. He is directed to file reply positively before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.161/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.861/2015 15.02.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.81/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.403/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Bherusingh is in jail and he wants time to file an appropriate application in this regard.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.474/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10571/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Case No.13654/2016 be stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1723/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.837/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Meanwhile, order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the trial court in M.J.C. No.787/2016 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing regarding respondent No.1.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1410/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
None present for the respondents No.2 to 5 even after second round.
Heard on IA No.8314/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The revision is barred by 287 days. After due consideration, application (IA No.8314/2015) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission on 08.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8642/2015 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2015 15.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service of notice.
Heard on IA No.266/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petition is barred by 290 days. After due consideration, application (IA No.266/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission on 22.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.53/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round. Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay process fee within seven days.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.48/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Petitioner is directed to cure the defect within a week.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.138/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1171/2016 15.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for admission along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam. On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C..
During investigation it was found that applicant no. 1 and 2, are the parents in law of deceased and applicant no.3 is the wife of the deceased. The marriage of applicant no.3 was solemnized with deceased on 22/05/2010. she is also having one daughter Roshni aged 3 years. Due to some dispute between applicant no3 and deceased their matrimonial life got strained. So applicant no. 2 came to deceased's house at Alot and took applicant No. 3 and her daughter Roshni with him. There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased. Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote. He also left a suicide note. On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.
During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison. From the statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet, only allegation against the applicants was that applicant No.3 wanted deceased to live with her parents at their house. Firoz committed suicide because applicant No.2 took his wife applicant No.3 and daughter with him to their house since deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family. Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants did not send their daughter with deceased. Apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated with the deceased. Only on the ground that applicants did not send their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide.
He further submitted that deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual of consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife, therefore, applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 with him. But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz in his suicide note himself mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants did not send his wife and daughter with him and that they are liable for his suicide. So, there is ample evidence to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and prayed for rejection.
[5] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties. The suicide note of deceased reads as thus:-
,l-ih-egksn;] eSa vkyksV dk jgus okyk gwa esjh 'kknh lu~ 2010 esa eUnlkSj esa gqbZ Fkh A esjs ekekth dh yM+dh ls ge nksuks cpiu ls ,d nqljs dks ilUn djrs Fks vkSj cM+s gksdj 'kknh djuk pkgrs Fks tks gks rks xbZ ij esjs llwj tukc esgcqc [kku tks iqfyl eas gS vkSj vkids 'kgj jryke esa izeks'ku ij ,l-vkbZ- cu dj vk,s gSa mUgksus 'kknh ls igys dqN ljrs j[kh Fkh tks eSa ;k esjk ifjokj iwjh ugha dj ik;k Fkk blfy, mUgksus us mudh yM+dh jks'ku [kku dks vius ikl okil cqyk fy;k Fkk vkSj mlls ukSdjh djok jgs Fks pkj eghus igys eSa vkSj esjk ifjokj lkFk esa tkdj gkFk tksM+dj mldks ysdj vk,] tks nykSnk Ldqy esa i<+k jgh Fkh mlus ogka ls Ldqy cUn djds gekjs lkFk vkdj jgus yxh Fkh ij vHkh 10-9-14 dks esjs llwj esgcqc [kku esjh felsl dks cgyk Qqlyk dj okil eUnlkSj ys x,s vkSj /kedh nsdj x,s dh rqe lcdks dksVZ esa ?klhVwaxk vkSj esjh chch ls oks fQj nykSnk iCyhd Ldwy esa ukSdjh djok jgs gSa vkSj eSa viuh chch ls vkSj viuh rhu lky dh csVh lksfQ;k ls cgqr I;kj djrk gqa oks yksx u rks mldks okil Hkstsaxs cydh rykd dh Hkh /kedh ns jgs gSa blfy, egksn; eSa viuh tku ns jgk gwa vkSj esjh ekSr ds ftEesnkj esjs llwj esgcqc [kku vkSj lkl jft;k gSa eSa viuh chch ds chuk ftus ds ckjs esa lksp Hkh ldrk blfy, lqlkbZV dj jgk gwa A fQjkst [6] From the case diary statement of Shabbir Husen, Zarina Khatun, Mohammad Rafiq, Gulam Husen, Chhoti Be @ Jubeda Bi, Mohamad Shabbir and suicide note of deceased, it appears that only allegation against the applicants, who are the wife's parents in law of the deceased are that their was some dispute between applicant No.3 and her husband deceased Firoz, due to which applicant No.2 took her daughter from the custody of deceased to his house at Mandsaur and did not send her with the deceased and not let the deceased talk with applicant No.3 and her daughter and wanted to marry applicant No.3 to another person. On that count deceased Firoz committed suicide. Applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 and her daughter Nine or Ten days before the incident.
[7] In the matter of Babbi @ Jitendra V/s. State of M.P. reported in 2008(2) MPHT 160 considering a case under Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, it has been held as under by this Court :
"09. For making out an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is 'abetment' by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :
306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
10. As per definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by :
(i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or
(ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
(iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
1. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act."
Merely on the ground that deceased held the applicants liable for his suicide in his suicide note it cannot be assumed that applicants abetted the deceased for committing suicide. For abetment to commit suicide there should be evidence of any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which lead or compelled the person to commit suicide.
[8] Merely because a relationship does not work out"
and one of the two people ends his or her life, the other person cannot be held guilty of abetment. Besides, the accused must have possessed the knowledge or intention that his acts would lead the person to commit suicide. Without knowledge or intention, there can be no abetment. In this case the material on record may show a cause for the husband to feel so depressed as to take such a decision, but how much he was so depressed by the act of the applicants is different from person to person. It is not a common feature that husbands are led to commit suicide. So it is not a normal conduct.
[9] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu V/s. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 512, after considering various earlier judgments in para 15 observed that, "Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
[10] So in the considered opinion of this court evidence collected against the applicants by the prosecution are totally insufficient to infer that the applicants abetted for suicide, they may be cause for the suicide but not the abetted. Resultant, the petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the order framing charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Accordingly, Revision is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6937/2014 13.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore. The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas. After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud. Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement. On the said refusal the applicant beat and threatened her. Then on 09.01.2013 she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant. On that report Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 294 and 506 of IPC. After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant. On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2130/2013 was registered before the J.M.F.C., Indore and J.M.F.C., Indore framed charges under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant and tried the matter. The case is pending for evidence before the trial court.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Looking to the FIR and charge-sheet no offence is made out against the applicant. Respondent did love marriage with applicnt and after marriage she never resided with the applicant. From the very same day she returned to Satwas. Before that report respondent also filed a report in Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that applicant solemnized temporary marriage with her and soon after the marriage applicant left her. She had lived with applicant only three hours after marriage then applicant left her. So there is no question of applicant's demanding money or torturing the respondent. The FIR lodged by the respondent is false.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the FIR prima facie case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out. On the charge-sheet learned trial court prima facie found that offence under Section 498A, 506 and 294 of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the applicant for those offences. So there is no question of quashment of criminal case. The respondent filed another application before the Mahila Thana averting that she only lived with the applicant for three hours after marriage is not a part of charge-sheet under which circumstances, that application is filed, is a matter of evidence. The application filed by the applicant along with petition is not a part of charge-sheet. So, it can't be considered for quashing the Criminal Case that under what circumstances did the respondent filed that application is a matter of evidence. So considering that application, at this stage proceedings of Criminal Case No.2130/2013 cannot be quashed.
[5] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by both the counsels.
[6] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
[7] It appears from the record that after investigation of the report lodged by the respondent No.2, police found prima facie case against the applicant and filed charge-sheet against the applicant so at this stage only on the basis of document filed by the applicant along with this application it cannot be assumed that respondent No.2 filed the report just to harass the applicant based on false allegation.
[8] Prima facie offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 are clearly made out from the FIR, whether the allegation made by the respondent No.2 in the report is true or not? It cannot be ascertained at this stage as it requires evidence, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. So the petition is dismissed. Applicant is free to raise all objections before the trial court at appropriate stage.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.218/2012 14.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None present for the respondent. Heard on IA No.997/2017, which is an application for taking legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal on record under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC.
Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Death Certificate of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal along with the application.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal be taken on record. Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.
The matter is already admitted for final hearing, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.619/2011 14.02.2017 Shri K.K.Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No.978/2017, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for legal representatives of respondent No.5 Narendra Kumar to be brought on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and also prays for a fix date of any Wednesday.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.514/2000 14.02.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Bhagwan before this court.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to keep the appellant Bhagwan present before this Court positively on 03.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant Bhagwan.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2007 14.02.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.
Heard on IA No.661/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji on 04.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.830/2013 14.02.2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant Amarsingh Chowdhary present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1300/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant Amarsingh Chowdhary on 12.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 12.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.121/2016 14.02.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent Pradeep Mishra is present in person along with his counsel.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of respondent Pradeep by order dated 03.02.2017 be recalled.
Applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
Let the matter be listed along with the record for hearing on admission after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.126/2015 14.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.728/2015 14.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to pay fresh process fee and also seeks permission to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode.
Prayer is allowed.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.447/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant Nana @ Dilip is not present. Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of applicant Nana @ Dilip before this court.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.822/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Section 421 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
421. Warrant for levy of fine. (1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.
M.C.C.No.931/201614.02.2017 Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.9418/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petition is barred by 5 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to calculation mistake he could not file the petition in time. Delay is bona fide, therefore, it be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.
After due consideration, application (IA No.9418/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned..
The M.C.C. is for restoration of SA.No.68/2015, which has been dismissed on 27.10.2016 for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.10.2016 he was engaged on another board, therefore, he could not appear for arguments on 27.10.2016 and Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. His absence is bona fide, so SA No.68/2015 be restored to its original position.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and SA No.68/2015 is restored to its original position.
Office is directed to place the SA No.68/2015 for hearing on 01.03.2017.
M.C.C.No.931/2016 stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.2/2001 13.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellants No.1 Smt. Bhanwar Bai and No.4 Banesingh are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.
Heard on IA No.919/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellants No.1 Smt. Bhanwar Bai and No.4 Banesingh on 19.12.2016.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 19.12.2016 is hereby condoned.
They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.57/2016 13.02.2017 Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents objected the prayer and submitted that this Civil Revision is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10274/2016 13.02.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.728/2017 13.02.2017 Shri Amit bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Nitesh Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1669/2013 13.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.664/2004 13.02.2017 Shri Bharat Patel, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to secure presence of appellants Bhawla and Keru before this court.
Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.69/2005 13.02.2017 Ms. Archna Jadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.158/2008 13.02.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent. Today both the parties submitted that new arbitrator Shri S.N.Sharma be appointed in place of Shri N.K.Porwal.
Office is directed to take his consent for the matter. Let the matter be listed after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns NATIONAL LOK ADALAT 11.02.2017 Since settlement is not possible, therefore, the case is released from the National Lok Adalat.
List the matter before the regular Bench.
(Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey) (M.A.Bohra)
Judge Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.981/2015 10.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Complaint No.26409/2015, whereby he took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 506 and 393 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents averting that on 30.01.2015, at 2.45 p.m., applicant went to Life Insurance Corporation's Office, Indore, where respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla abused and beated him and another 25-30 persons confined the applicant and respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla tried to loot money from applicant. On that applicant informed Aditya Garg on phone then he came there. Respondents No.1 Sunil Jhinjhore, No.2 Abdul Jalal Mulla and No.3 Bhupendra Rathore with the aid of other persons beated Aditya Garg also and tore his shirt. Applicant and Jitendra lodged report about the incident at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore but Police did not lodge the FIR. So cognizance under Section 294, 506, 323, 342 and 393 read with Section 34 of IPC be taken against the respondents. Learned trial court recorded statements of applicant and Aditya Garg under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C., then by order dated 01.07.2015 on the complaint took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 342, 506 and 393 of IPC against them. Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the complaint and statements given by the applicant and Aditya Garg (PW-2) offence under Section 393 and 506 of IPC is clearly made out. Learned trial court committed mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no prima facie evidence on record to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC, so learned trial court has not committed any mistake in not taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.
[5] This court perused the record and arguments put forth by both the parties.
[6] Applicant only deposed that at the time of incident respondent Sunil Jhinjhore, Abdul Jalal Mulla and Dilip Jain tried to snatch money from him and respondents also threatened to break his legs that if he lodged the report in Police, he would break legs and hand of him. But for attracting offence under Section 506 of IPC the threat should be a real and not just a mere word. When the person uttering it does exactly what he said and also when the person at whom threat is launched feels actually threatened. Empty threats does not prima facie means that the case under section 506 I.P.C. is made out. If the threat is mere word there is no offence. Words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it is does not appear from the statement of complainant that complainant felt, as reasonable man, that the accused was going to convert his words in action, on the contrary complainant himself stated that after the threat of respondent to break his hands and legs if he lodged the complaint, he went to Police Station Tukoganj, for lodging the report which shows that respondent's threat caused no fear to complainant. So trial court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 506 of IPC, likewise complainant deposed that respondents tried to snatch money from him but it is not stated that from where respondents tried to snatch money either from his pocket or from his hand.
Moreover he did not even disclose the amount he was carrying that respondents tried to snatch and where he kept that money. So, learned trial court has also not committed any mistake in not registering the case under Section 393 of IPC.
Hence, Revision has no force and is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam. On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz. Due to this reason he committed suicide in his house. On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant. During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison. The statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet. Only allegation against the applicants was that applicants want to deceased live with them at their house. Firoz committed suicide because applicants took his wife and daughter with them in their house because deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family. Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants not sent their daughter with deceased, apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated the deceased. Only on the ground that applicants not sent their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide. He further submitted that as per prosecution case deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual for consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife and forcefully took with him. Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee stated to deceased that if he leaves liquor and not ill treat her. Due to this reason Firoz has committed suicide, so as per whole charge-sheet there is no whisper of evidence collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of IPC and there is no evidence of any abetment or instigation for committing suicide found by prosecution. But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz himself in his letter mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants not sent her wife and daughter with him and applicants are liable for his suicide. So, there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and reject their prayer.
[5] It appears from the record that only allegation against the applicants is that applicants who are the father-in-
law and mother-in-law of the deceased took their daughter with them and not sent with deceased Firoz on that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.
[6] Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar V/s. State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) M.P.L.J. Page 195 in which this court held that, "Abetment to commit suicide - Proof - The act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide. In the present case there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of applicant and the act of deceased of commission of suicide. Applicant is said to have entered the house in the night, but the deceased hanged herself in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. It appears that under great stress and depression and feeling ashamed by the conduct of applicant, she committed suicide. Apparently, the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against applicant merely on the ground that deceased felt ashamed by the said conduct of accused. However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of complainant in the night. The act of entering the house in the night, without permission and consent of the complainant amounts to an offence under Section 451 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the order framing charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, the trial court is directed to frame the charge under Section 451 of Indian Penal Code and to proceed according to law."
and also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Parmal Singh S/o Asharam Kateria (Rajput) and others V/s. State of M.P. reported in 2011 (1) M.P.L.J. Page 340, whereby this court held that, "Charge framed against for abetment of suicideby wife - Revision - Deceased committed suicide as she was dejected by allegation of her having illicit relations - Suicide committed by her after more than 15 hrs. from the time of quarrel - Act of did not fall within the ambit and scope of abetment as defined under Section 306 Penal Code - No prima facie case of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 Penal Code is made out - Order of trial Court directing framing of charge against set aside - Revision application allowed."
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge F.A.No.682/2015 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.J.Hardia, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.
Heard.
The M.C.C. is for restoration of FA.No.322/2016, which has been dismissed on 20.07.2016 in compliance of peremptory order.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 20.07.2016 office-in-charge could not attend the office, so defect could not be cured, because of that FA no.322/16 was dismissed. His absence is bona fide, so FA No.322/16 be restored to its original position.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and F.A.No.322/2016 is restored to its original position.
Office is directed to place the F.A.No.322/2016 for hearing on 28.02.2017.
M.C.C.No.717/2016 stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.854/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.10019/2016, which is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to renew applicant's passport.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's passport has expired on 26.08.2015. The applicant, who is an MLA is required to travel abroad for many government official works, therefore, he may be permitted to renew his passport.
Prayer is allowed with the condition that the applicant will not leave India without permission of this court.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.978/2016 10.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Lokesh Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1185/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11197/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Chandrapal Gupta - applicant present in person. Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counselfor the respondent. Heard on IA No.9853/2016, which is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing of the said petition.
The revision is barred by 224 days. After due consideration, application (IA No.9853/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the application is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.547/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.104/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.235/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1218/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1431/2017 10.02.2017 Mrs.K.Mundra, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.6916/2016, which has been dismissed for non- compliance of order dated 22.11.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 22.11.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason and has filed process on 20.12.2016, so M.Cr.C.No.6916/2016 has been dismissed for non- compliance of order dated 22.11.2016.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.6916/2016 is restored to its original position.
Office is directed to place the M.Cr.C. No.6916/2016 for hearing on 23.02.2017.
M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1512/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 10.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1605/2017 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply of IA No.2472/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.222/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State.
None present for the respondent. In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1167/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This matter has wrongly been listed today. Let the matter be listed on 14.02.2017 as per order dated 07.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1136/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant. Service report of the respondents is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on 07.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1138/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record is not received as yet. Office is directed to place the matter along with the record for admission on 07.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1347/2015 09.02.2017 Shri Kantesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.306/2016 09.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.38/2017 09.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1445/2015 08.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in M.Cr.C.No.432/2014, whereby he allowed the application of respondent's filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are minor children of the applicant. Earlier they filled M.Cr.C.No.52/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant, In that case trial court vide order dated 19.05.2010 directed the applicant to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance for each of the respondents. On 04.12.2013, respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the awarded amount is not sufficent for maintaining them, so amount of maintenance be enhanced. Although applicant opposed the prayer but learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- for each of the respondent. Being aggrieved with the order applicant has filed this Criminal Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that applicant is not able to give enhanced amount because his income is on lower side, on the contrary respondents are living with their mother and their mother running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she is able to maintain the respondents wrongly enhanced the amount of maintenance.
[4] It is appeared from the evidence on record that applicant himself admitted that between the year 2010 to 2015 went inflation has doubled and also admitted that the respondents are gradually getting older so need of respondents are also growing. There is no reliable evidence on record which shows that mother of respondents is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
Although applicant deposed that he is a laborer and only earns Rs.4,500/- per month. but he also admitted that his mother having shop he works in the house of his mother. It is not believable that applicant is working as labourer in the house of her mother, so it appears that applicant for hiding his income wrongly deposed the facts. it is known fact that inflation is increasing and need of respondent is also growing with her age. in these circumstances learned trial court has not committed any mistake in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the Revision is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.670/2017 08.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by this Court in Cr.R.No.1591/2015 by which this Court rejected applicant's Revision and maintained the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch, in Criminal MJC No.30/2014, whereby the learned Judge ordered the applicant to pay arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.14,300/- to respondent No.1 for the period of 01.02.2012 to 31.12.2012 and amounting to Rs.1,36,000/- to respondent No.2 for the period of 10.09.1996 to 31.12.2012.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that, the respondents had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (henceforth the code) in Criminal MJC No.21/1999 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch which was allowed and Respondent No.1was granted Rs.1300/- per month from 10.9.1996 and respondent No.2 was granted Rs.700/- per month from 10.9.1996 till attaining majority or till her marriage. Thereafter an application was made by the respondents on 2/1/13 for recovery of the amount under Section 125 (3) read with Section 128 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch, demanding amount for Respondent No.1 from 1/1/12 to 31/12/12 and for Respondent No.2 from 10.9.1996 to 31/12/12. This proceeding was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch.
[3] The applicant raised the objection that respondent No.2 has become major so she has no right to get the maintenance. Even otherwise in view of section 125(3) of the code recovery of the amount should be confined to one year prior to filing of the application. The rest of the amount stands time barred in view of subsection (3) of section 125 of the code.
[4] The Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch, by order dated 21.11.2015 rejected the applicant's objection by observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and she filed the application on 02.01.2013 within one year of attaining majority. So her application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. The applicant is bound to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 from 10.09.1996 to till attaining the age of majority and of her marriage. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed Cr.R.No.1591/2015, which was decided by this court vide order dated 14.12.2016 and maintained the order of the trial court observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.
[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the revision filed before this court took an objection that respondent No.2 had become major before filing of execution but respondent No.1 Rashida filed an execution on behalf of respondent No.2 as guardian hiding the fact that she is a major. The minor could have filed an application within a year after attending majority and claimed maintenance from 1999 but the application was filed by her mother which cannot be filed after lapse of so many years. The application is time barred so impugned order may kindly be recalled.
[6] It appears from the record that this court after evaluating all the facts clearly held that the time given under first proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code for filing application for recovery of arrear of maintenance would run from the date from which respondent No.2 became major i.e. 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.
[7] There is no ambiguity in that order. The application for getting maintenance was filed by both the respondents. So only on the ground that in the application it is mentioned that respondent No.2 is minor, it cannot be said that the application is not filed by the respondent no.2. Hence, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.R.No.9047/2016 08.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.R.No.9405/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9823/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9967/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Vijay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10097/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11510/2016 08.02.2017 Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11510/2016 08.02.2017 Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12058/2016 08.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12288/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that looking to the reply of State he wants to withdraw the petition with the liberty that if he feels that State is not taking serious action against the applicant then he will file fresh petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12701/2016 08.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13067/2016 08.02.2017 Shri Pranay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after two weeks, along with the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.13/2017 08.02.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Office is directed to place the matter along with service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 08.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to comply with the direction of this court vide order dated 23.01.2017.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.144/2017 08.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 08.02.2017 None present for the appellant. Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1648/2015 07.02.2017 Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of statement of respondent Smt. Pooja Sarkar recorded by the trial court in MJC No.120/2015, which is taken on record.
Heard.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.No.3881/2015, whereby applicant is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for getting maintenance from the applicant and also filed an application for getting interim maintenance during trial of the case.
Learned trial court observing that respondent is the legally wedded wife of applicant and presently living separate from the applicant and it is the duty of the applicant to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that respondent voluntarily without any cause is living separately from the applicant, so she is not entitled for any maintenance.
Even otherwise respondent helps her parents in business and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and she is able to maintain herself while applicant is unemployed and unable to give maintenance to the respondent. Thus, learned trial court has wrongly ordered the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that applicant without any cause refused to maintain the respondent. So learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.
[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties. It is admitted that respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and at present living with her parents. In that circumstances, respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.
Whether respondent is voluntarily living separately from the applicant or she is able to maintain herself is a matter of evidence. It cannot be decided at this stage without evidence.
Although applicant stated that he is unemployed presently and it is admitted that applicant is a Software Engineer. It is not the case of the applicant that he is unable to do work because of any inability. So under these circumstances, if learned trial court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case to the respondent, it cannot be said to be wrong. So, Revision is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.32/2015 07.02.2017 Shri Aditya Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per report received of non-bailable warrant of appellant, Remsingh has died on 03.01.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Remsingh.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 Remsingh from appeal memo.
Learned counsel for the appellants wants time to produce appellant No.2 Vinod before this court.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to keep the appellant No.2 Vinod present before this Court positively on 20.02.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Vinod.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 07.02.2017 Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.
Let the matter be listed along with FA No.998/16 in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1324/2017 07.02.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.885/2015 07.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of case No.37/Legal/14 of Collector, Dewas is not received as yet.
Office is directed to issue reminder. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing. Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 07.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1548/2015 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.500/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Sandeep Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vijay Kumar Nagpal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8654/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the status report of trial court's proceeding and to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11892/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 23.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7282/2016 07.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Both the parties are directed to remain present before the court on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 27.03.2017. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.846/2012 07.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents wants time to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016 positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1688/2014 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Sanjay before this court.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to keep the appellant Sanjay present before this Court positively on 22.02.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant Sanjay.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1204/2015 07.02.2017 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Chakrawarti Swami received unserved.
Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 30.03.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant No.3 Ramlal before this court as the appellant could not mark his presence before this Court/Registry on 10.01.2017.
Time is granted.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to keep the appellant No.3 Ramlal present before this Court positively on 02.03.2017.
Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.3 Ramlal.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1273/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.9277/2016.
After due consideration, application (IA No.9277/2016) is allowed. Appellant is directed to change his appeal into leave to appeal. Necessary amendments be carried out.
After necessary amendments matter be listed on 14.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 28.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.89/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents even after service of notice.
Heard finally at motion stage. This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda in Civil MJC No.3/15; whereby he allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC by the respondents/defendants before the court to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.30-A/2014.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No.30-A/2014 before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda against the respondents for declaring him owner of suit land and restraining the respondent to interfere in his possession in the suit land. During trial of the suit, on 08.12.2014, respondent and his counsel were absent, so trial court proceeded ex parte against the respondent and passed the ex parte judgment in favour of the applicant on 23.06.2015. For setting aside that judgment and decree respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 01.09.2015 before the trial court and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application before the trial court. In reply applicant opposed the prayer. But Learned trial court allowed the application observing that the disposal of case should be on merits and not only on technical grounds. Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this Civil Revision.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court wrongly allowed the application of respondents without giving an opportunity for producing evidence.
[4] It appears from the record that the applicant in his reply opposed the prayer of respondents. The application filed by the respondents is also time barred and respondent also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. In that circumstances it is the duty of the court to give opportunity to the parties to give evidence in support of their contentions. Learned trial court without giving proper opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions decided the application, which cannot be said to be correct. This court in the case of Babulal Ramcharan and others V/s. Chhotekhan Lal Khan reported in 1976 MPLJ Page 843 held that, "under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC the applicant must show that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. And, sufficient cause can be made out to the satisfaction of the Court only on the basis of evidence. It cannot depend on any whim or fancy of the presiding officer. It is the duty of the court to give each of the parties reasonable opportunity to support or oppose the application."
But learned trial court without giving proper opportunity to the parties decided the application which cannot be said to be corrected. Hence, revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside without commenting on merits and the matter is remanded back to the trial court with the direction that first trial court give an opportunity to respondents for producing the evidence in support of their application. Thereafter, give an opportunity to the applicant for rebuttal and then again decide the application on merits.
[5] Applicant is directed to appear before the trial court on 22.03.2017. Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of order before 22.03.2017. Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4218/2016 06.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned First A.S.J., Mandleshwar in Special Case No.18/2013, whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant Nawal Singh for further cross-examination.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe from complainant Naval Singh for correcting entries of revenue record.
[3] During trial of the case on 22.09.2015 applicant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. averting that according to the information received by the applicant from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone complainant did not file any application before the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone for correcting the revenue entries and procuring new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika. So, he wants further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.
[4] Respondent in his reply opposed the prayer and averted that from the documents produced with charge-sheet it is clear that the work of complainant was pending before the applicant at the time of incident and pray for rejection.
[5] Learned trial court rejected his application observing that earlier also applicant had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2015 which was rejected by this court. Applicant again filed the application on the same ground. There is no need to recall the complainant for re-examination and that applicant is free to file document in his defence. Being aggrieved from this applicant has filed this petition.
[6] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial for allegedly demanding and taking illegal gratification for correcting revenue entries of complainant's land and issuing new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika while the information received from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone after completion of examination of complainants Naval Singh (PW1) before trial court shows that no such work of complainant was pending before the revenue authority at the time of incident. So it is essential to cross examine the complainant on the point on the basis of information received. The trial court wrongly rejected his application for further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.
[7] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has filed this application only for delaying the trial. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer.
[8] It is clear from the record that the deposition of complainant before trial court completed on 19/08/14. At that time trial court gave full opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant. Applicant himself averted in the petition that he received the information on 11/11/14 while applicant filed the application for further cross examine the complainant before trial court on 03/06/15, almost seven months after receiving the information. Applicant also had full opportunity to file the said documents in his defence. So trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Criminal Revision No.1422/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally at motion stage. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.03.2008. But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her. After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year . Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there. Applicant and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for taking her back.
Aggrieved by such behaviour of the applicant and his family members respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's petition. In compliance of that order applicant took the respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his behaviour with the respondent remained same but after sometime he left the respondent at her parental house.
Then respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police Station Malharganj. On the report Crime No.251/2013 was registered, which is already pending against the applicant. Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself. Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. Applicant is also having business of selling milk and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent, but has refused to maintain the respondent without any sufficient cause. So, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.
[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him and averted that family members of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that she is handicapped . Also, at the time of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage with respondent is void. Applicant never demanded any dowry and never harassed the respondent. Respondent made false allegation in this regard in her application. Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to maintain herself, while applicant earns only Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain respondent and prays for rejection of application.
[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties allowed the application of respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.
[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this revision.
[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent due to which because applicant was debarred from his right. It is also proved from the evidence that respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped. Since applicant was minor at the time of marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void. In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim maintenance. Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in 10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum. Trial Court without appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance.
[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. There is no need for interference in that order and pray for rejection of the petition.
[8] The court perused the record and arguments put forth by the parties. It appeared from the record that learned Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014 respondent and her brother was present in the court for giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine. On that Trial Court fixed next date of evidence on 22.11.2014. On that date again applicant sought time for evidence of respondent and her brother Pradeep, then learned Trial Court fixed next date as 18.02.2015. On that date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the respondent whereupon trial court gave one more opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time to cross-examine the respondent. Then Trial Court closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent. Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.
[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct. Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the marriage void on that ground then and there.
[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor is not void. It is not the case of applicant that he after attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the marriage on that ground. So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant.
[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage she lived with the applicant for three years but after that applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her back. Then she filed the petition before the Family Court. On the order of Family Court applicant took her but after one & half year applicant again left her in her parental home. Since then respondent is living with her father. The statement of respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep (PW-2). Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant as his wife. Applicant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to keep respondent with him.
[12] Respondent also deposed that she is handicapped and she has no earning. Although applicant stated that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but respondent clearly denied this fact. Applicant did not produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.
[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause. In these circumstances respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.
[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned. It appears from the record that learned trial court on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5 that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni. So the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on the higher side. It is appropriate to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-
per month. Remaining conditions of the trial court order shall remain the same.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.135/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.193/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 8.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent No.9/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.4/2017 06.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondents is not received as yet. Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.861/2016 06.02.2017 Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1232/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report of respondent is not received as yet. Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nitin Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1597/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent Raju Gangore is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1605/2016 06.02.2017 Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 06.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application before the Juvenile Justice Board .
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 14.02.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns.
Civil Revision No.55/201603.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mehul Negi, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Heard.
This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in the Nationalized Bank.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him Rs.4,25,000/-. The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same. Applicant is a labourer and she is unable to bear the cost of repairing work from her income of labour work, so she wants compensation of Rs.57,375/- which was kept by the Tribunal in the Fixed Deposit in applicant's name.
[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her application. Hence, the Revision is allowed. Learned Tribunal is directed to pay an amount of Rs.57,375/- which was being kept as Fixed Deposit in the name of applicant in a Nationalized Bank. Applicant be permitted to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the Tribunal in a Nationalized Bank as Fixed Deposit upto 11.04.2018.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance. Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.134/2017 03.02.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.140/2017 03.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns.
M.Cr.C.No.142/201703.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.809/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns.
Cr.R.No.172/201603.02.2017 None present for the .
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the , case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.873/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Mukesh Sinjonia learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.351/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant Dinesh has died.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to verify the factum of death of applicant Dinesh.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.74/2015 03.02.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns.
Cr.R.No.1493/201603.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The revision is barred by 180 days. After due consideration, application (IA No.10593/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.37/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.269/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision.
The revision is barred by 417 days. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail, therefore, he could not file the revision in time.
After due consideration, application (IA No.269/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record on 17.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1620/2016 03.02.2017 Shri S.D.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1995/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.56/2017 03.02.2017 Shri R.S.Bais, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Jayprakash Kore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.50/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Jayprakash Kore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.74/2017 03.02.2017 Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after a week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.704/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant/State.
None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondent, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.583/2017 03.02.2017 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns.
F.A.No.682/201503.02.2017 Shri K.L.Hardia, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Cr.R.No.915/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1227/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1836/2016 03.02.2017 Shri G.S.Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1950/2016 03.02.2017 None present for the .
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the , case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4708/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12153/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the intervener.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply of IA No.10793/2016.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12829/2016 03.02.2017 Shri Nandlal Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of necessary documents on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2017 03.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after the record is received.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri K.Malviya, learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.264/2017 03.02.2017 Shri R.C.Nihore, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.445/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of documents.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the documents, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.969/2017 03.02.2017 Shri Abhijit Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1211/2009 03.02.2017 Shri Shri M.Negi, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on IA No.639/2017, which is an application to dispense with service to respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by way of present appeal, the appellant is not challenging their liability but is challenging false implication of the the insured vehicle in the alleged incident, therefore, the respondent No.5, who is owner of the vehicle is not required for fair disposal of the present appeal. So, notice to the respondent No.5 kindly be dispensed with.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Service of notice to respondent No.5 be dispensed with, with the risk of the appellant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.765/2014 03.02.2017 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that mediation is failed.
Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6110/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the applicant.
Respondent Smt. Amita Brahmo is present in person.
Respondent wants time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 02.02.2017 Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - present in person. Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Zafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6.
None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even after service of notice.
seeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.793/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the . Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four weeks time to file reply.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with service report of respondents No.1 and 2.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.226/2012 02.02.2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety. Service report of perpetual warrant and notice of surety not received as yet.
Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks along with the report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.663/2013 02.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1115/2016 01.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Abid.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant Abid has been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.
According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016, at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju (PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal with their weapons with an intention to kill them.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated. Since co-accused Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case, therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to get bail. Hence application for suspension of sentence be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.
This Court has carefully gone through the case and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.
The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this court. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun in his legs. Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun. He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal. According to the postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.
The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.A.No.2134/2016
01.02.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3228/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9509/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.137/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The appeal is barred by 2,283 days. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time.
After due consideration, application (IA No.697/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.183/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on IA No.657/2017, which is an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC for giving time to pay court court fees.
After due consideration, prayer is accepted. Applicant is given two months time to pay court fees.
Let the matter be listed after two months.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.71/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.110/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Ashish Kanoongo, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.161/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1121/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.863/2005 01.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this court.
Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.159/2015 01.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce the applicant Javed before this court.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1765/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.53/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on 08.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.94/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed after curing the defect record be called.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.160/2006 01.02.2017 Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8533/2015 01.02.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record on 15.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.252/2015 01.02.2017 Shri Kailash Sajonia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Applicant Mangal Prasad is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.745/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant on 12.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Mangal Prasad on 12.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1362/2016 01.02.2017 Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1175/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Sachin Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Applicant seeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1409/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Applicant seeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1560/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ankit Keshwarwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Applicant seeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.100/2017 01.02.2017 Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.A.No.74/2017 in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.101/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Office is also directed to place the matter before co- ordinate Bench in the next week.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1080/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.802/2013 01.02.2017 Shri M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
As per office report, notice of respondent received unserved with the endorsement that respondent is not resided on a given address.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.8/2015 01.02.2017 Applicant Ravi Kumar Potdar present in person. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri P.J.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Applicant seeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.809/2015 01.02.2017 Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 03.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 01.02.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1501/2015 01.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri D.S.Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC against the on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016, respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at Sagar. But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her. They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty. Earlier also she had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised with the applicant and started residing with him and she also got the case disposed of in compromise. But, applicant again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house. Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore. On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73, Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her. On that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant. After investigation charge- sheet was filed. Being aggrieved with the FIR applicant has filed this application.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and after some time she compromised with the applicant and again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false report against the applicant. Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha herself tortured the applicant by her act. Earlier respondent No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with consent. But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce papers signed from her. Applicant never came to Indore for demanding money and never threatened respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also lodged a report averting that applicant came on 14.05.2016 in Indore at her parental house and threatened her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- but when respondent No.2 came to know that on that date applicant was in Haidrabad (Telangana), she again filed a false complaint on 22.05.2016. So, this report be quashed.
[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the court. So, at this stage only on the averment of the applicant it cannot be said that the report lodged by the respondent No.2 is false.
[5] This court gone through the record and arguments put forth by both the counsels.
[6] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
[7] It appears from the record that after investigation of the report lodged by the respondent No.2, police found prima facie case against the applicant and filed charge-sheet against the applicant so at this stage only on the basis of document filed by the applicant along with this application it cannot be assumed that respondent No.2 filed the report just to harass the applicant based on false allegation.
[8] Prima facie offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 are clearly made out from the FIR, whether the allegation made by the respondent No.2 in the report is true or not? It cannot be ascertained at this stage as it requires evidence, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. So the petition is dismissed. Applicant is free to raise all objections before the trial court at appropriate stage.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.156/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Bhimsen Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on IA No.520/2017, which is an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC for giving time to pay court court fees.
After due consideration, prayer is accepted. Applicant is given two months time to pay court fees.
Let the matter be listed after two months.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.69/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file an appropriate application to condone the delay in filing of petition.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1070/2017 31.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.145/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.813/2016 31.01.2017 Dr.Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.261/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even after service of notice.
In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1468/2013 31.01.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Zafar Siddique, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even after service of notice.
As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died. Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to take appropriate steps regarding death of respondents No.4 and 5.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1691/2016 31.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.18/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record of MCC No.12/2015, which is disposed of by the 29th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore by order dated 09.12.2016.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.79/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and he wants a fix date for any Wednesday.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10000/2014 31.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1298/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1561/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7174/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the chargesheet has already been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Ajay Bhavsar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet and to argue the matter on the next date of hearing.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.87/2017 31.01.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 14.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.821/2012 31.01.2017 Shri D.S.Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondent even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2472/2016 to the counsel for the respondent during the course of the day.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Pankaj Kumar Sohani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None appears on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply of IA No.286/2017.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2015 31.01.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.570/2016 registered at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B/34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.
[2] It is appeared from the record that on 11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that complainant/respondent and s No.1 to 3 admit that they amicably settled their dispute. It appears from the record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled between the parties.
[3] It is true that some of the sections involved in the case are non-compoundable offences, however, the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in which Apex Court held that, "The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under Section 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings."
[4] The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & others V/s. State of Punjab & others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
[5] In the light of the aforesaid compromise which is taken place between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter pending especially when the grievance of the complainant has been satisfied by the present applicant.
[6] Resultantly, the FIR at Crime No.570/2016 registered at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B/34 of IPC is hereby quashed. Criminal proceedings also stands quashed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.29/2017 30.01.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.696/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.719/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1223/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited. Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record from the Family Court, Neemuch.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1380/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1551/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice of respondent received unserved.
Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11907/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12523/2016 30.01.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 30.01.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12971/2016 30.01.2017 Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13138/2016 30.01.2017 Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.21/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.95/2017 30.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.196/2017 30.01.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Record of the trial court is not received as yet. Office is directed to issue reminder. Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after receiving of the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.477/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Record of the trial court is not received as yet. Office is directed to call for the record. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1014/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Yogesh Markan, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice of respondent received unserved in absence of correct address.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.
On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.98/2017 27.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.39/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the appellant even after service of notice.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant even in the second round, case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.196/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is still awaited. Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.723/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1287/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report of respondent Naval Kishore Mishra is not received as yet.
Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1540/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court regarding amount.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1376/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4262/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing petition.
After due consideration, application (IA No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.
The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.
Office is directed to place the Cr.R. No.353/2016 for hearing on 16.02.2017.
M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1735/2016 27.01.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13007/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.
Prayer is accepted.
Thus, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.125/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.583/2017 27.01.2017 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.983/2016 27.01.2017 Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Let the matter be listed along with MCC No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.672/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9147/2016 27.01.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9374/2016 27.01.2017 Shri D.K.Chhabra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11171/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11618/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.20/2017 27.01.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.106/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1226/2010 27.01.2017 Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call the report from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?
Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the report.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014 27.01.2017 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 &
8. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.776/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
Applicant is also directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.981/2015 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1370/2015 27.01.2017 None present for the applicant. Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015 27.01.2017 Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3991/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the even after service of notice.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In the absence of counsel for the matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9125/2014 25.01.2017 Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell, District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.165/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondents is not received as yet. Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2016.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1585/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.224/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.725/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1234/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to verify the papers produced by the applicant before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.986/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Virendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1303/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rajmal Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1631/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2925/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.966/2001 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the sole appellant Rajesh.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
As per office report, non-bailable warrant of appellant Rajesh is received unserved.
Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before this court.
Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 25.01.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press IA No.587/2017.
Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is dismissed as withdrawn.
Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2185/2008 25.01.2017 Shri M.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant. Service report is still awaited. Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.151/2014 25.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.62/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.475/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice.
In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned. Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.539/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice of respondent received unserved.
Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1017/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.
Let the matter be listed along with FA No.9982/2016 after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.595/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.46/2017 24.01.2017 Shri K.L.Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.951/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1119/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to file power on behalf of the respondent and also to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1580/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is awaited. Office is directed to place the service report along with the record on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2016.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Dad, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice of respondents No.1 and 2 received unserved.
Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.300/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1133/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. None present on behalf of the respondent. In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks. Office is also directed to call for the record.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.85/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. As per office report, notice issued to respondents No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent No.6 not received yet.
Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017. Counsel for the applicant is free to service on respondents by hamdast mode.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.460/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal memo notice not issued to the respondents.
is directed to produce the copy of appeal memo within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.424/1997 24.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Report regarding juvenility is awaited. Office is directed to issue reminder. Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1460/2010 24.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
As per office report, non-bailable warrant of appellant Mohammed Salim not received yet.
Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 16.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1025/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Naushad received unserved. Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.
Let the matter be listed on 16.03.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1497/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.
Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply of IA No.3466/2016.
By way of last indulgence, time is given. Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to pay process fee.
Prayer is accepted.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1761/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7493/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Paresh Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice of respondent received unserved in absence of correct address.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.
On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1432/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1634/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15- A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 30.01.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2017 24.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.849/2017 24.01.2017 Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC. Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was filed as "Civil First Appeal" under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC. It should have been filed as a "Miscellaneous Appeal" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC. So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.
After due consideration, application (IA No.8480/2016) is allowed. Office is directed to register this First Appeal as a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC. Amendment be carried out within three days.
Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.125/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks. It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1135/2015 24.01.2017 Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.
The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide mistake the counsel for the applicant could not appear at the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original position.
Office is directed to place the M.Cr.C. No.11538/2015 for hearing on 03.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.279/2004 24.01.2017 Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant Mohanlal is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.668/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 09.12.2016.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Mohanlal on 09.12.2016 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.422/2017 23.01.2017 None for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available.
Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.206/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the . Learned counsel for the seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.44/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicants. Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1493/2014 23.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the appellant. As per report, bailable warrant issued to the respondent Suresh Mehta is returned unserved with a note that respondent is not residing on the given address.
On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue bailable warrant the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2017 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.58/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 23.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1048/2016 23.01.2017 Shri N.M.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1604/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondents is awaited. Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.104/2017 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.622/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.776/2017 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.3022/2011 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on IA No.5410/2016, which is an application to extend the time to pay deficit court fees.
After due consideration, application is allowed. One month's time is granted to pay remaining court fees.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.510/2016 23.01.2017 Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1069/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the parties.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1408/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5644/2016 23.01.2017 Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 06.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.K.Asudani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11440/2016 23.01.2017 Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.396/2014 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.5/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.454/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.566/2016 23.01.2017 Shri P.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report of respondents is awaited. Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.726/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed in the next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.765/2016 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.864/2016 23.01.2017 Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.C.Waghela, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to argue the matter.
Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.201/2006 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable warrant.
Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016 in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on the said date.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on 05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non- bailable warrant is recalled.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.746/2013 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
As per office report, notice of respondent No.1 received unserved in absence of correct address.
Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.
Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2675/2013 23.01.2017 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant. None present on behalf of the respondent though served.
The appeal is already admitted. List for final hearing in due course. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.246/2015 23.01.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.
Prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.482/2015 23.01.2017 Shri M.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant Pappu Mansuri is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.199/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 02.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant Shahid is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.474/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 04.01.2017.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Shahid on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.293/2005 23.01.2017 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Appellant Abdul is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.303/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 02.12.2016.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.475/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
No one is present on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of notice. Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after service of notice.
Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.
After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed. Applicant is directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal memo.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.725/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
None present for the respondent. Service report of respondents is awaited. Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the copy of appeal to respondent No.1.
Let the matter be listed tomorrow i.e. 24.01.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC No.39/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.C.C. No.42/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.84/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.125/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to call for the record. List next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.144/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.146/2017 20.01.2017 Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.67/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.75/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.
Office is also directed to call for the record. List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.109/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that case-diary is not available today.
He is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.
List next week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.654/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, which is an application for stay.
Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants. It is further submitted that this is a civil transaction and there is no material for taking the cognizance under Section 420 of IPC. He prays that the further proceedings before the trial Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.
On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants, it be recalled.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.
List on 13.02.2017.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.680/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.
List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.698/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after one week.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.755/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.78/2014 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.93/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.100/2016 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, even in second round. In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
List on 10.02.2017.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.214/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.535/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.539/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicants.
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file compliance report.
Prayer is allowed.
List after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.581/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received unserved with a note that they are not residing at given address.
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.628/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.658/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Asudani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to comply with the order.
Prayer is allowed.
List after three weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.4812/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 21.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016 20.01.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Service report of respondent No.2 is awaited. Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the record before next date of hearing.
List on 03.02.2017.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Counsel for the State is directed to peruse the status report of the proceedings before next date of hearing.
List on 09.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 14.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016 20.01.2017 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 22.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12381/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant/State.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within 15 days returnable within six weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record. List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 17.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.29/2017 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.
List the matter in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.77/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Office is directed to call for the record before next date of hearing.
List on 09.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi F.A No.123/2005 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 seeks time to file reply on I.A. No.4744/2013.
Prayer is allowed.
He is directed to file positively on next date of hearing.
List on 03.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.513/2010 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/State.
Heard on I.A. No.10099/2016, which is an application for deleting name of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
After due consideration, application is allowed. Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo. Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.
Office is directed to call for the record. Office is also directed to send reminder.
List the matter in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2745/2013 20.01.2017 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before next date of hearing.
List on 28.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
It is made clear that no further adjournment will be given.
List on 20.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1384/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Notice issued on respondent received unserved with the note that he is not residing on given address.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh PF within 15 days.
On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to respondent, returnable within six weeks.
List after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 31.01.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.44/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Counsel for the State is directed to produce case- diary before next date of hearing.
List on 17.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.824/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1029/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.
As per office report, notice issued to respondent received unserved.
Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF within seven days.
On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent within one week, returnable within four weeks.
Office is directed to call for the record. List after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1149/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for respondent even after service of notice. In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.
List on 08.02.2017.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi