Madhya Pradesh High Court
Thawaria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2017
Cr.A. No.761/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Considering the fact that one more Criminal
Appeal has been filed by the appellant through legal aid
authority on 17.04.2017 vide Cr.A.No.696/2017, we
permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal.
With the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
On filing of certified copy of the documents
original be returned to the learned counsel for the
appellant.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4148/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on IA No.3111/2017, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice of IA No.3111/2017 to the
respondents on payment of process fee within a week,
returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.510/2017
28.04.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. Lokayukt.
After arguing for some time, Shri A.S.Rathore,
learned counsel for applicant prays for withdrawal of this
revision with liberty to file petition under Section 70 of
Cr.P.C. before the trial court.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, Cr.R.No.510/2017 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.771/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Shanno Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/State, therefore, no further notice is required.
Record of the trial court be called for.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.758/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/State, therefore, no further notice is required.
Record of the trial court be called for.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.592/2010
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 along with
Cr.A.No.541/2010.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.594/2010
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 along with
Cr.A.No.541/2010.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.541/2010
28.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant,
let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 for appearance of
appellant No.1 Kalu @ Harish Mahawar.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.40/2011
28.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.477/2017, an application for
seeking direction for furnishing of bail bond and sureties
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
On due consideration, application (IA No.477/17)
is allowed. Further four weeks' time is granted to furnish
bail bond and sureties as per order dated 22.01.2016. He
is also directed to mark his presence before the Registry
of this Court on 25.09.2017 and on all other subsequent
dates as may be given in this behalf.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
FA No.149/2017
28.04.2017
Shri A.Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant
prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file
petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
On filing of certified copy of the documents
original be returned to the learned counsel for the
appellant.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4323/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day's time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4331/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day's time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4342/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day's time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4351/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted one week's time to cure the defects as
pointed out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1154/2010
28.04.2017
None for the appellant No.1 Sitaram, even after
second round.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Last application for suspension of jail sentence
was decided on 19.04.2017 and within a period of three
days this second application has been filed by Shri
K.C.Paliwal, Advocate.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant,
IA No.3332/2017 is dismissed as not pressed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.730/2014
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Shri Ajay Bagdiya, Advocate, today
he is engaged by Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel counsel
for the appellant and prays for and is granted one week's
time to argue on IA No.3312/2017.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.643/2016
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State, last opportunity is
granted to submit the report.
Let the matter be listed on 01.05.2017.
(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1320/2014
12.04.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant Nasir Khan.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on IA No.1664/2017, which is an application filed by appellant Nasir S/o Fateh Khan for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain in ST No.277/12 and grant of bail.
Appellant Nasir Khan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 364-A of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, appellant and other co-accused entered into conspiracy for kidnapping Hasmukhlal from Mahidpur for taking ransom and in pursuance of conspiracy other co-accused persons on 24.12.2011, at 9.00 a.m. Abducted Hasmukhlal from Village Sekakhedi, Tehsil Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain and beated and robbed him and threatened to kill him and released him after taking Eight Lakhs as ransom. Appellant also intending to facilitate the commission of an offence kept watch on Hasmuklal's house and gave the information to co accused on mobile to facilitate them in committing the crime.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence against appellant Nasir on record which connects appellant with the offence. Only on the basis of suspicion learned trial court found appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 364A & 365 read with Section 149 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC. Prosecution produced only three circumstances regarding appellant's involvement in the conspiracy of said crime :-
(i) Appellant Nasir was seen before the house of Hasmukhlal at the time of incident, (ii) Appellant was seen talking with other co-accused Yogesh and Sachin and (iii) prosecution also produced call details for proving that appellant Nasir was connected with non-
applicant. But only on the ground that appellant was found in front of the house of Hasmukhlal on the date of incident or some persons saw him talking with co- accused Sachin on the day , are not sufficient to connect appellant with the offence. Likewise regarding call details, Police did not file Certificate under Section 65- B of the Evidence Act, so the call details are not admissible in evidence. Even otherwise from the call details also it is not proved that appellant is connected with the crime. Disposal of appeal will take time, so sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant in this regard also relied upon the Apex Court's judgment passed in Harpal Singh @ Chhota V/s. State of Punjab, in which Apex Court held that, "Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65- B - Electronic evidence - Requirements for admissibility of - Principles reiterated
- Held, electronic evidence in nature of secondary evidence cannot be admitted unless requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied - In present case evidence of incriminating call details (relating to case of conspiracy to kidnap for ransom) were sought to be proved by evidence of PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 on basis of printed copy of computer generated call details but prosecution failed to adduce certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65-B(4) - Said call details, held inadmissible - Though conviction was upheld on basis of other evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield thereto. It has been propounded that any electronic record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied. "
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed prayer and submitted that from the prosecution evidence it is clearly proved that applicant was also involved in the crime of abducting Hasmukhlal for ransom and pray for rejection.
We have gone through the record and argument put forth by both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case we are of the view that the jail sentence of the appellant Nasir, be suspended subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 01.08.2017 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
[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
Cr.A.No.1504/2014
12.04.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant Sachin @ Hemraj.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on IA No.612/2016, which is an application filed by appellant Sachin @ Hemraj S/o Raju Yadav for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain in ST No.277/12 and grant of bail.
Appellant Sachin @ Hemraj has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- and under Sections 395 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, appellant and other co-accused entered into conspiracy for kidnapping Hasmukhlal for ransom and in pursuance of conspiracy applicant and other co-accused persons on 24.12.2011, at 9.00 a.m. Abducted Hasmukhlal from Village Sekakhedi, Tehsil Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain. They beated and robbed him and threatened to kill him and released him after taking Eight Lakhs as ransom.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record against appellant Sachin @ Hemraj on record which connects him with the crime . Learned Additional Sessions Judge only on the basis that Hasmukhlal identified the appellant as an accused and DNA profile of one chewing gum found in the car in which Hasmukhlal was allegedly transported from Mahidpur to other place, matched with that of appellant found appellant guilty, while regarding identification of appellant as an accused many infirmities are there in the statement of Hasmukhlal. Likewise it is not proved from the prosecution evidence that DNA profile of chewing gum found in the car matched with that of appellant. Learned trial court committed mistake in finding appellant guilty for the offence under Section 364-A and 395 of IPC. The appeal will take time so sentence be suspended and appellant Sachin be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that there are ample evidence against appellant to connect him with the crime. Hasmukhlal clearly identified appellant as an accused, who was involved in the abduction of Hasmukhlal for ransom. So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in convicting appellant for the offence under Sections 364-A & 395 of IPC. and prayed for rejection the prayer.
We have gone through the record and arguments put forth by both the parties. It appears from the prosecution evidence that Hasmukhlal himself identified the appellant as one of the abductor.Police also recovered Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand from their possession. That apart there are other evidence also on record to connect the appellant with the crime. So, looking to the evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant, it is not appropriate to suspend his sentence and release the appellant on bail, hence, the prayer 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
Cr.A.No.242/2016
07.04.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2481/2016, which is First application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant Afzal @Bhura for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant Afzal @ Bhura has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC in two count and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in each count and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six month RI for each default.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant. Although prosecution witness Kalimullah (PW1), Mehabub Khan (PW2) deposed that they saw Afzal @ Bhura beating his wife deceased Vahima but in this regard their statement were afterthought. Likewise, Lukman (PW4) and Shahabuddin (PW5) deposed that they saw accused Afzal @ Bhura on spot at the time of incident but their statement also appears afterthought. Learned trial court also disbelieved their statements in this regard. That apart, there is no other direct evidence on record against appellant/ accused. Prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances is to be proved while in this case no chain of circumstances has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. Although deceased Wahima wife of appellant/accused and son Danish were found dead in the house of appellant and death is homicidal in nature but from the prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence it is proved that at the time of incident appellant/accused was not at home. There is no other circumstantial evidence on record to connect the appellant/ accused from the offence. Learned trial court without appreciating evidence wrongly found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Learned counsel of applicant also placed reliance on this court's judgement passed in Punja Vs State of M.P. reported in 2006(4) MPHT 17.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that there is ample evidence on record to connect the accused appellant with the aforesaid charges and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that appellant Afzal @ Bhura's case is fit for suspension of jail sentence therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case we are of the view that the jail sentence of the appellant Afzal @ Bhura, be suspended subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 6.7.2017 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.
Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R. No.1616/2016
30.03.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
04.04.2017
Order passed signed and dated.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6931/2016
27.03.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey,J.
Parties through their counsel.
This application has been filed under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in ST No.96/2015; whereby he acquitted the non- applicant from charges under Sections 366, 363, 376 (2)(n) and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
[2] Brief facts of the case are that on 13.04.2015 at 12.00 p.m., non-applicant came to the prosecutrix's house situated at 142, Patel Marg, Rasmandal, Dhar and abducted her on the pretext of marriage and took her from her house on foot to Mohan Talkies, Dhar, from there he took her to Badwah by bus and then to Indore and from Indore to Shirdi. In Shirdi he kept prosecutrix in a hotel and committed rape with her and also threatened to kill her. Thereafter he took prosecutrix back to Dhar and left her at Ghoda Chaupati and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody. On that incident Crime No.248/2015 was registered at P.S. Dhar for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After investigation Police filed chargesheet. On that chargesheet ST No.96/2015 was registered. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar framed charges against non-applicant for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However, after trial he acquitted non-applicant from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved the applicant filed this leave to appeal.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the entry of scholar register of prosecutrix it is clearly proved that on the date of incident applicant was minor but learned trial court not relying on that document wrongly held that applicant was major at the time of incident. Likewise from the statement of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses it is also proved that non- applicant abducted and committed rape with her. While learned trial court without appreciating the evidence wrongly acquitted the applicant from the aforesaid charges.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the non- applicant submitted that learned trial court after evaluating all the evidence rightly held that applicant was major at the time of incident and a consenting party and rightly acquitted the non-applicant and prays for rejection.
[5] This court has gone through the record and the arguments put forth by the parties. Although in the scholar register (Ex.P/11) the date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as 02.11.1998. From that date the age of prosecutrix appears 17 years & 7 months on the date of incident. But that entry of scholar register was not proved properly because prosecution did not produce the person who made that entry. The father of the prosecutrix Dinesh (PW-2) and mother of the prosecutrix Komalbai (PW-3) clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they did not remember prosecutrix's date of birth. In the medical examination report also it is mentioned that secondary sexual characters of prosecutrix are well developed. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, learned trial court after evaluating all the evidence found that applicant was major at the time of incident, therefore, in these circumstances learned trial court did not commit any mistake in holding that prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. From the statement of prosecutrix it appears that she went with non-applicant from Dhar to Dhamnod, Dhamnod to Indore and Indore to Shirdi by bus. She is a consenting party and went with the non-applicant. So learned trial court also did not commit any mistake in acquitting the non-applicant from the charge under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1062/2006
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.499/2006
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1077/2005
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.476/2014
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.444/2008
27.03.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Case is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.466/2015
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.401/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with Cr.A.No.296/2016 on 28.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2403/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with Cr.A.No.296/2016 on 28.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4072/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for four weeks' time to verify the factum of death of respondent No.2 Sohrab.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.296/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for four weeks' time to verify the factum of death of respondent No.2 Sohrab.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.582/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 04.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.842/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6879/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.832/2016
27.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8215/2016
27.03.2017
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the applicant/State.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Respondent No.2 has not been served. Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.2 Rahil before this court.
Let the matter be listed along with Cr.A.No.832/2016 on 10.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.6375/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners as Public Interest Litigation for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashment of order dated 09.11.2015 passed by the M.P. Wakf Board by which the Executive Officer M.P. Wakf Board has directed for removal of encroachment and also for execution of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.38-A/2000. A prayer has also been made for declaring the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 as unconstitutional. Further prayer has been made that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and Sections 4, 5, 6 and Section 40, 83, 85, 88 and 104 be declared as unconstitutional.
The facts of the case reveal that a Civil Suit (Civil Suit No.27/08) is decided by the M.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal in respect of land bearing Survey No.1262, 1263 rakba 0.083 Are 1265, 1269, 1270 rakba 0.784 Are 1272 rakba 0.784 Are 1273 rakba 0.187 Are 1276 rakba 0.010 Are 1277 rakba 0.125 Are 1855/1 rakba 0.293 Are 1858/01 rakba 0.084 Are and 2001 rakba 0.596 Are situated in Village Susner and judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit holding the property as Wakf property.
2. The judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal has not been set aside and earlier also Public Interest Litigation was preferred i.e. Writ Petition No.629/2013 (PIL) and this court has passed the following order :-
"In this case, though the petitioners have challenged various provisions of the Wakf Act as ultravires, but it appears that the litigation which was initiated before the Wakf Tribunal had reached to finality in which there is an order of demolition of the buildings. But the buildings are Government Hospital and Government School for the public and because of the orders passed by the Wakf Tribunal, these are to be demolished. This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioners who were not party before the Tribunal.
During course of hearing, we asked from Shri Bohra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 whether respondent No.6 will be satisfied if some alternative land in lieu of the land which is occupied by the hospital and school is given to respondent No.6 by the State Government, so that the Government hospital and school buildings can be saved. Shri Bohra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 prays four weeks time to seek instructions from the respondent No.6 in this regard.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that in case the Government does not agree to give the land in lieu of the aforesaid land, petitioners may be allowed sometime to offer some alternative land to respondent No.6 in lieu of the aforesaid land. This aspect will be considered on next date of hearing.
Be listed for hearing on 24.6.2013.
Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondents shall not demolish the buildings namely Middle School and Veterinary Hospital, both of Government and shall maintain status-quo as on today. "
3. The aforesaid PIL was finally dismissed in default . However, the facts remained that the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal has not been set aside and now a second similar PIL has been filed stating that a large number of Govt. Hospitals and Govt. Schools and other Govt. buildings are existing in the Wakf property and , therefore, the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal which is in execution of judgment and decree be set aside and some alternative land be given to the Wakf Board.
4. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 15.12.2016 this court has stayed all demolition activities, and the State Govt. was directed to inform whether they have made any alternative arrangement or not for shifting the Govt. schools, which are situated over the wakf property and also an opportunity was given to inform this court in respect of allotment of alternative similar land before demolition by the Wakf Board. It is really unfortunate that inspite of similar opportunity granted on 03.05.2013 passed in WP No.629/2013 not an inch of land is allotted to the Wakf Board in lieu of the land over which Govt. Schools, Govt. Colleges and other Govt. buildings are in existence.
5. This court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal in a civil suit cannot be set aside in the Writ Petition. There is a procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code and once there is a judgment and decree passed by the court of competent authority, it is to be executed in accordance with law. This court does not find any reason to entertain the present Public Interest Litigation, the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the State shall still be at a liberty to offer alternative land to the Wakf Board of equal dimension and if the same is offered before the executing court, the executing court shall be free to pass appropriate order with the consent of the parties.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.50/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.49/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.48/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.39/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.38/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.37/2016
23.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A. No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.36/2016
23.03.2017
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.5, 6 and 7. He prays for listing of the matter on 04.05.2017 along with other connected matters i.e. ITA No.37/16, ITA No.38/16, ITA No.39/16, ITA No.48/16, ITA No.49/16 and ITA No.50/16.
Reply if any be filed before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with connected matters as aforesaid on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.36/2016
23.03.2017
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.5, 6 and 7. He prays for listing of the matter on 04.05.2017 along with other connected matters i.e. ITA No.37/16, ITA No.38/16, ITA No.39/16, ITA No.48/16, ITA No.49/16 and ITA No.50/16.
Reply if any be filed before the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed along with connected matters as aforesaid on 04.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.931/2004
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. As prayed, list the matter on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.555/2007
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on IA No.8541/2017, which is an application for disposal of the case in motion hearing stage itself.
This court is of the considered opinion that as per scheme of roster final hearing of this appeal is not possible at motion hearing stage, therefore, IA No.8541/2017 is hereby rejected.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1774/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
List the matter on 02.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1773/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
List the matter on 02.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.489/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record be requisitioned.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.487/2017
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record be requisitioned.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.493/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record be requisitioned.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.492/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record be requisitioned.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.233/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days.
List the matter on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.7798/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Shri Umesh Gajankush learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State prays for time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 09.05.2017, as prayed. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.191/2005
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Service report is awaited. List the appeal along with service report on 11.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.766/2010
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for listing of the appeal on 05.05.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List the appeal on 05.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.543/2011
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. By the letter dated 07.01.2017 Station House Officer, P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam has informed that appellant No.2 Babulal S/o Sukhram Bairagi is no more.
In the light of the aforesaid report received from the S.H.O., P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam, appeal stands abated to the extent only against appellant No.2 Babulal is concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.2 Babulal from appeal memo.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.372/2015
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
List the matter on 10.04.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.926/2015
20.03.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.
Service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against respondent No.2 Suresh not received as yet.
List the matter along with service report on 03.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.124/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
List the matter on 21.03.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.169/2016
20.03.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.
Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the respondent No.1 Surya @ Suresh for securing his presence before this court on 09.05.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why the surety amount may not be forfeited.
List the matter on 09.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1616/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 30.03.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.12848/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 11.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
A.R.No.3/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.
Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of IA No.1762/2017 & IA No.1763/17on payment of process fee within 7 days.
Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 15.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.A.No.151/2017
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment.
Case is adjourned.
List the matter on 03.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.398/2017
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks' time to do necessary amendments.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 11.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1131/2017
20.03.2017
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of IA No.1897/2017on payment of process fee within 7 days.
Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 12.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2754/2017
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks four weeks' time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 02.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.5407/2015
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 10.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.7496/2016
20.03.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 09.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.248/2017
13.02.2017
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1462/2017
13.02.2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent/CBI.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant case is adjourned.
List the matter on 06.03.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11292/2016
13.02.2017
Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report is awaited. List the matter along with service report on 04.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.6914/2014
13.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the Union of India prays for four weeks' time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 20.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
VATA No.4/2016
13.02.2017
Ms. Preeti Waghmare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State prays for two weeks' time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 27.03.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.8482/2016
13.02.2017
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State prays for four weeks' time to file reply.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 08.05.2017. I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
T.R.No.20/2016
13.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. List the matter on 16.03.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1425/2017
10.02.2017
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the applicant/State.
Let the defects be cured within four weeks. List the matter on 05.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.229/2017
10.02.2017
Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1039/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The appeal is barred by 25 days. It has been stated that appellant is an illiterate person and could not contact his counsel in time, therefore, he was not able to file the appeal within time limit.
After due consideration, application (IA No.1039/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for for consideration of IA No.1040/2017 on 05.04.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.52/2017
10.02.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1054/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The appeal is barred by one day. It has been stated that appellant is a poor person and he is in jail and there is no other responsible member in his family, therefore, he was not able to file the appeal within time.
After due consideration, application (IA No.1054/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2703/2016
10.02.2017
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to cure the defect.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days.
List the matter on 15.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1033/2013
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for listing of the matter on 08.05.2017.
Prayer is allowed.
List the appeal on 08.05.2017, as prayed.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.57/2008
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Appellant Kailashchandra Vyas is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.
Heard on IA No.1092/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 06.02.2017.
It has been stated that the appellant was not well in those days, therefore, he was not able to appear before the Registry of this Court.
After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Kailashchandra Vyas on 06.02.2017 is hereby condoned.
He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 08.08.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1575/2017
10.02.2017
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of IA No.1112/2017on payment of process fee within 7 days.
Office is directed to call for the record. List the matter on 03.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1496/2017
10.02.2017
Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days.
Office is directed to call for the record. List the matter on 08.05.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.239/2017
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.237/2017
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.234/2017
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.231/2017
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Office is directed to call for the record. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.754/2017
10.02.2017
Parties through their counsel. Shri Choudhary accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
Let copy of the Writ Petition be handed over to Shri Choudhary during the course of the day.
Shri Choudhary, counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 prays for time to seek instructions and to file reply of the petition.
Prayer is allowed.
He is granted two weeks' time to file reply and to seek instructions.
List the matter on 20.02.2017. Meanwhile, process fee be paid for issuance of notice to respondents No.3 and 4 during the course of the day.
List along with WP No.621/17, WP No.8608/16 and WP No.7942/16 on 22.02.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.702/2017
08.02.2017
Shri Abhinav P. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for listing of the matter on 22.02.2017.
List along with WP No.621/17, WP No.8608/16 and WP No.7942/16 on 22.02.2017.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.694/05, Cr.A.No.766/05 & Cr.A.No.932/05 16.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri ........, learned counsel for the appellant ....... Shri ........, learned counsel for the appellant ....... Shri ........., learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This common order shall govern the disposal of Cr.A.No.694/05, Cr.A.No.766/05 and Cr.A.No.932/05.
[2] As per prosecution story, on 23.01.2003, at about 11.00 a.m., when complainant Mehmood was at home situated at Village Mahukhedi, P.S. Bherugarh deceased Anwar came at his residence and stated that accused appellant Mangu Mali, who has also got agriculture field nearby the land of Anwar did not allow him (Anwar) to get Holend machine which gave rise to some dispute and it is told by Anwar to the complainant Mehmood that he was slapped by said Mangu. Deceased Anwar when had gone to Mehmood his brother Amjad was also with him. After hearing Anwar, Mehmood (complainant) suggested to make Mangu (accused) to understand the real position and in that process it is said that the complainant Mehmood with his brother Ayyub, Akram, Balli @ Sharif, Anwar and Amjad proceeded to the field of Mangu (accused) situated in Village Mahukhedi by motorcycle. After having reached near the field of Mangu, they left the motorcycle there and proceeded further on foot, suddenly the accused Mangu, Rakya, Ramesh and Mohan came there who were armed with deadly weapon like sword, dhariya, axe and gun also.
[3] Accused Mohan shouted ^^Bgjks eknjpksn] dgka tkrs gks** and tried to fire the gun on him, then Mehmood and other associate Anwar etc. in order to save themselves tried to run away from there, but they were obstructed by Bhanwarsingh and his son Bhagwansingh, Mukesh, Mahesh and Madan, who also were armed with weapon like sword and axe. They shouting that Anwar and other be led to death, thereafter accused Ramesh gave a blow by axe causing injury on the neck of Amjad. Accused Madan also gave an axe blow on Balli @ Sharif causing injury on his hands. Accused Mangu gave blow by sword on the head of Balli. After sustaining injuries Amjad and Balli fell on earth then accused Bhanwarsingh and his son started beating by sword to Anwar, who also fell down. Akram (complainant) himself and Ayyub tried to save them as they were at a distance. They raised voice to rescue him and thereupon all accused applicants returned back to Village Mahuakhedi. Injured (Amjad, Balli and Anwer) were brought to the Village Panbadodiya on motorcycle and thereafter they were taken to hospital at Ujjain in a tractor. In the hospital Doctor declared Amjad as dead. On that Mehmood lodged the report (Ex.P/22) Dehati Nalishi in Police Station Bherugarh, Ujjain regarding incident. After writing Dehati Nalishi he sent it to Police Station Bherugarh where on the basis of that Dehati Nalishi Crime No.23/04 was registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the IPC and matter was investigated into by ................. During investigation police got conducted postmortem of deceased Anwar Khan.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8475/2016 17.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Shri K.C.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
This application has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Special Judge, District Barwani in Special Case No.19/2015, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges under Section 376(1), 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. [2] As per prosecution story, on the night of 19.05.2015 at Village Dhanora, P.S. Anjad prosecutrix was sleeping along with her daughter Ranjana in the courtyard of her house. Her brother-in-law and sister-in-law were also sleeping in front house. Her husband had gone to Village Brahmangaon to attend a marriage. At 11.00 p.m., respondent/accused came there, shut her mouth and threatened to kill her daughter if she shouted and raped the prosecutrix and then ran away from there. On hearing the shouting of prosecutrix her brother-in-law Mahesh came there. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Mahesh. On 26.05.2015, when her husband Kaluram returned from the marriage, she narrated the incident to him and lodged the FIR in Police Station Anjad. From the FIR Crime No.123/2015 was registered for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the respondent/accused. After investigation police filed the charge-sheet before the court on that charge-sheet Special ST No.19/15 was registered. Special judge after framing the charge under section 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act tried the respondent/accused. However, after trial the special judge acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved from the judgment, applicant filed this application.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the statement of prosecutrix it is clearly proved that respondent/accused committed rape with prosecutrix. Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Mahesh (PW-4) and Kaluram (PW-5). Learned trial court without appreciating their statements wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused.
[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that trial court after averting all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused from the aforesaid charges and prayed for rejection of application.
[5] We have gone through the record and arguments put forth by both the parties. The alleged incident is said to have occurred on 19.05.2015 while prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 27.05.2015. There is no proper explanation regarding delay of 8 days in lodging FIR. As per prosecution story, at the time of incident prosecutrix was sleeping with her three year old daughter Ranjana. Even her brother-in-law and sister-in-law were also sleeping in the courtyard of the house. It seems unlikely that respondent/accused committed rape with the complainant against her will and her daughter did not wake up or shout. According to the medical report, no injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. It appeared that Learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused from the aforesaid charges. In the considered opinion of this court, there is no need to interfere in that judgement. Hence, the application is hereby rejected.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.8475/2016 stands disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2016 13.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri C.L.Yadav, learned senior counsel with Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant Suresh Verma.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8783/2016, which is First application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant Suresh Verma for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant Suresh Verma has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year's RI.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial court wrongly found guilty the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and that there is no direct evidence against the appellant. The conviction of the appellant is solely based on dying declaration (Ex.P/20) recorded by Ajeet Kumar Shrivastava (PW-16), Nayab Tehsildar. From the evidence of prosecution it is clear that dying declaration (Ex.P/20) is false and fabricated. There is no record of this document that how this document came into possession of the Investigating Officer or in the case diary. It is also clear from the medical evidence that deceased Savita received 100% burn injuries and looking to her condition it was not possible to record her dying declaration. There is also no corroboration of the dying declaration with other independent evidence. Hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the dying declaration of deceased Savita wife of appellant it is clear that appellant set fire on her after pouring kerosene, due to which she died. At the time of incident Savita was pregnant and she died due to burn injuries sustained by her in the incident. Learned trial court rightly convicted the accused. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for rejection of the application.
Although learned trial court only on the basis of dying declaration of deceased Savita found appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC but conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration if it is reliable. It is clear from the statement of Ajit Kumar Shrivastava (PW-16), who is an independent witness and who recorded the dying declaration of deceased Savita that Savita clearly stated to him that appellant set fire on her after pouring kerosene. Dr. Ashvi Kunjan (PW-17) also stated that he certified dying declaration (Ex.P/20) that deceased was in fit condition to give statement.
Mansingh Takur (PW-18), who investigated the crime clearly stated that S.I. Kaul the then A.S.I., Psolice Station Sendhwa inquired the merg No.4 and 5/10. He handed over his report, other documents and dying declaration of deceased Savita. Even Manoj Shinde (PW-11) also stated that on 24.03.2010 in hospital Savita told him that appellant set her on fire after pouring kerosene. So it is not a fit case for grant of 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
Cr.A.No.1258/2015 and Cr.A.No.1308/2015 13.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Vinod Chouhan.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the appellant Kundan Ajmera.
Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the objector.
This common order shall govern the disposal of IA No.9332/16 (in Cr.A.No.1258/15) and IA No.9758/16 (in Cr.A.No.1308/15).
Heard on I.A.No.9332/2016, which is First application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant Vinod Chouhan for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Also heard on I.A.No.9758/2016, which is Second application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant Kundan Ajmera for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellants Vinod Chouhan and Kundan Ajmera have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months and Vinod Chouhan has also been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(A)/27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.
As per prosecution story, on 04.11.2013, at about 7.00 p.m., deceased Sunil went to Katvadwala field situated on border of Village Padlya and Village Delmi along with Vinod and Kundan for cultivating the field taking tractor of Surendra Thakur. At that time Shailendra also went with Sunil but Vinod and Kundan stopped him. When Surendra and his family was going to sleep at about 10.30 p.m. Vinod and Kundan came to his house along with injured Sunil and said that Sunil sustained gunshot injury. When complainant Shailendra Thakur inquired the appellants as to how Sunil sustained bullet injury, they could not explain and tried to misguide him. There is a dispute between the appellants and deceased Sunil regarding land so appellants murdered Sunil.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident. The FIR filed is also belated. The weapon was seized from the tool-box of the Tractor of Surendra Thakur (PW-2), who is maternal uncle of deceased Sunil. Had the present appellants killed deceased Sunil, they would have easily escaped from the spot itself but as per prosecution story appellants brought deceased Sunil to the house of Surendra Thakur(PW-2), then went to the hospital with deceased Sunil and complainant Surendra and they had been there for more than 12 hours and on the next day Police arrested them. Learned trial court without considering the above fact and as to the fact that weapon which has been allegedly seized from the possession of the present appellant Vinod is not the same weapon which has been examined by the Ballistic Expert of F.S.L., Sagar. The Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. Hearing of the appeals will take time, therefore, appellants pray for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as objector oppose the prayer and submitted that from the prosecution evidence it is clear that appellants Vinod Chouhan and Kundan Ajmera were last seen with deceased Sunil and from the Ballistic Expert's report it is clear that Sunil sustained injury by the weapon recovered on the information of appellant Vinod, therefore, learned trial court has not committed any mistake to convict the appellants for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and prayed for rejection of their application.
From the prosecution evidence it is clear that appellants were last seen with deceased Sunil and Sunil died due to gunshot injury and it also appeared from the prosecution evidence that weapon (katta) was recovered from the information received from Vinod. There is no clarification given by appellants, who were with Sunil at the time of incident regarding how Sunil got injured by fire arm. So, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate to release the appellants on bail. Hence, the applications for suspension of sentence are rejected.
The appeals are already admitted, therefore, let the appeals be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(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 petitioner. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner. Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
In absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 - petitioner 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.
Petitioner 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 petitioner.
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 petitioner 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 petitioners 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 petitioner even after service of notice.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In the absence of counsel for the petitioner 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.
Petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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