Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajave Textiles Private Ltd. vs Sourabh Biotech Throuh Sanjay Agrawal on 1 November, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5527/2018
(Shivnarayan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:01/11/2018
Shri C.K. Patne, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukta.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.4704/2018-this is
first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
Appellant No.2-Shyamlal has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2-
Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, who was working
as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora. Learned counsel for the
applicants submitted that the prosecution is unable to adduced any
evidence to establish the motive for receipt of illegal gratification
and demand made by appellant No.2-Shyamlal, which is Sine-quo-
non for fastening the criminal liability upon the accused under the
provisions of Anti Corruption Act. He further submits that besides the
complainant, the prosecution has not examined any other independent
witness for establishing the demand made by the appellant No.2 for
illegal gratification, therefore, the conviction of the appellant No.2 by
learned trial Court is wholly unwarranted. Although, the learned trial
Court has relied upon the transcript of tape recorder, recording
allegedly the voice of the appellants and complainant-Lakhan for
proving the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant No.2,
however, the tape recorded transcript cannot at all be considered to be
an admissible piece of evidence against the appellants because
provision of Section 65(B) of the IT Act has not complied with. It is
further submitted that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial
and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and the appellant No.2 cannot be
kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, this appeal filed by him may
turn infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Custodial
sentence of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, has already been suspended
by this Court, vide order dated 01/10/2018. Under these
circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail to appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Lokayukta opposed the application by contending that
appellant No.2-Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan,
who was working as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora and made a
demand of Rs.4,000/- for conducting the partition and mutation in
respect of land owned by him. When complainant and trap party
reached at the house of Patwari-Shivnarayan, he was not present there
and appellant No.2-Shyamlal has taken Rs.4,000/- from the
complainant on behalf of his father and at that time he was caught red
handed by the trap party. The documents relating to mutation
proceedings were also seized from the possession of appellant No.2-
Shaymalal and transcript of tape regarding conversation between the
present appellant and complainant in respect of demand of
gratification amount is also available on record, therefore, there is
sufficient material available on record to prove guilt against the
appellant No.2. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of
the application.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that being the son of Patwari, appellant No.2-
Shyamlal received gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant
and he was caught red handed by the trap party on the spot, therefore,
he is also involved in the alleged offence. Resultantly, IA No.
7404/2018 is hereby dismissed. If the appeal is not decided in near
future, then the appellant No.2 is at liberty to move fresh application
for suspension of his remaining custodial sentence.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar
Tiwari
Date: 2018.11.02 10:52:56 +05'30'
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.34282/2018x
Indore dated :01/11/2018
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6885/2018, an application
for interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
complaint cases against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khargone.
During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
on record.
From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
are mentioned in it and the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6885/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2494/2015
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
till next date of hearing.
List 18/12/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.34264/2018
Indore dated :01/11/2018
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6884/2018, an application
for interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
complaint cases against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khargone.
During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
on record.
From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
are mentioned in it and the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6884/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2492/2015
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
till next date of hearing.
List 18/12/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.C.C. No.966/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Shashank Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ravi Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3.
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that today the arguing
counsel is not available to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for time
to argue the matter.
Praye is allowed.
Matter be listed in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43406/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17983/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's
time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
respondent No.2.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37173/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's
time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
respondent No.2.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37666/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet alongwith statements
of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38965/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State is directed to
make available the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38450/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38452/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38447/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34067/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4966/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to file the copy of the charge-sheet.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.182/2004
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Welsingh received
unserved with the report that appellant-Welsingh is detained in District
Jail, Jhabua for offence punishable under Sections 34 and 36 of the M.P.
Excise Act.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Welsingh for
securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.
List on 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.409/2006
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Service report of perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.-2
Pyari is still awaited.
Office is directed to call report from S.H.O., Police-Station-
Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh regarding the efforts made by him for
executing the perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.2-Pyari.
List the matter on 17/12/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.408/2012
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Service report of non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-
Shravan @ Janu is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the
week commencing 26/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 707/2013
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant-Salim has received
unserved with the report that he is not found on given address.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant -Salim
to secure his presence before this Court on 12/12/2018.
Let notice be issued against surety of appellant -Salim, why his
surety amount may not be forefeited.
List on 12/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1853/2014
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks for consideration of IA No. 2797/2018, an
application for bail cancellation.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.596/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants further prays for time to keep
present appellant No.1-Yogesh before this Court.
By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
List on 15/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.634/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed the
death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of death
of appellant NO.3-Kaushal Singh and submits its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List on 17/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.783/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
As per the report received from the Station House Officer, Police-
Station-Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), appellant No.2-Sadaji S/o
Madhuji has died on 02/10/2017.
Considering the aforesaid report and copy of death certificate of
appellant No.2-Sadaji, this appeal stands dismissed as abated regarding
appellant No.2-Sadaji.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of
appellant No.2 from the array of the appellants within 7 working days.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.808/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
As per the report received from Superintendent of Central Jail,
Indore, appellant-Umashanker @ Daddu S/o Fakirchandra Parihar has
died on 06/08/2016.
Considering the aforesaid report, this appeal stands dismissed as
abated.
Let record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned trial
Court.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
There is a report regarding non-bailable
warrant issued against the sole appellant Prabhulal stating
that the appellant has died. There is a copy of the death
certificate duly verified by the Thana Prabhari, police station
Pachore, District Rajgarh.
Considering the report and the death certificate, I find
that the present appeal shall stand abated and is, therefore,
dismissed as such.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.12/2016
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant further prays for time to keep
present appellant-Deva @ Devisingh before this Court.
By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
List on 27/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1520/2016
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Non-bailable bailable issued against respondent-Mansoor Bhai
has received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
address.
Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against respondent-Mansoor
Bhai to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
List on 18/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 708/2017
Indore, Dated:31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 6801/2018, an application for listing the case on
any working Saturday or for final hearing in weekly list.
Office is directed to examine the matter and if it comes under
caption "High Court Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of
priority cases, whichever is earlier, then same shall be listed for final
hearing on any working Saturday.
With the aforesaid direction IA No. 6801/2018 stands disposed of.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 718/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant No.1-Vikram has
received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
address.
Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against appellant No.1-
Vikram to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
Let notice be issued against surety of appellant No.1-Vikram, why
his surety amount may not be forefeited.
List on 18/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.719/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the State/EOW.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 7609/2018, an application for stay
on the conviction passed by the trial Court.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.808/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
entered into compromise with the complainant and they have filed IA No.
19176/2017, an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence.
Aforesaid application shall be considered at the time of final hearing
of the appeal.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 311/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 671/2018, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 12 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the
conviction the appellant was sent to the jail, therefore, he could not
contact to his counsel, hence, this appeal could not be filed within
stipulated time period.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
delay of 12 days in preferring this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.671/2018 is allowed and delay of 12 days in
filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the court below be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.519/2014
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7573/2018,
repeat(third) application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.1-Rajendra Thakur
@ Raees Khan.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission to withdraw IA No. 7573/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.7573/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.703/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Cr.A. Nos.
607/2015 and 762/2015 are wrongly connected with the present appeal.
Office is directed to verify the same and delink the present appeal
from Cr.A. Nos. 607/2015 and 762/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.762/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two months.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.607/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two months.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41857/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary
alongwith the statement of witnesses recorded during the enquiry of
Merg No. 05/2018 registered at Police-Station-Nalkheda, District-Agar
(Malwa) by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41621/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40839/2018
(Yogesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.166/2018, Police Station-Biaora
Dehat, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under Sections
307 and 302/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39638/2018
(Manish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena on behalf of Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.231/2018, Police Station-Javad,
District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366 and
374 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37692/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week's time to cure
the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43777/2018
(Rohit Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Kaushal Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.518/2018, Police Station-Rajendra
Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 49(A) of the
M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to revive his prayer after filing of the charge-
sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40730/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38456/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38482/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36613/2018x
(Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 12(B)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5741/2017x
(Dinesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3333/2018-this is
repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.1-Dinesh. First application for suspension of custodial sentence
of appellant No.1-Dinesh is dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order
dated 27/02/2018.
Appellant No.1-Dinesh has been convicted for the offence punishabe
under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
1 year and 7 years, respectively with fine of Rs.500/- each with usual default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-Dinesh
is the husband of deceased-Sunita and he was on bail during the trial and he
did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Sunita has committed suicide on
30/09/2015 by consuming some poisonous substance. Father of the appellant
No.1 informed the police and parents of the deceased regarding her death. The
funeral ceremony was performed in the presence of the family members of the
deceased, but at that time they did not make any complaint against the
appellant No.1 regarding ill treatment of Sunita. It is further submitted that
Relji (PW 1), Rahlibai (PW 2), Jaggan (PW 3) and Ravindra (PW 5) have
made only general and omnibus allegations against the appellant No.1
regarding harassment of Sunita. As per the autopsy report no injury was found
on the body of the deceased. It is alleged that the appellant No.1 has
performed the second marriage, due to which Sunita has committed suicide.
There is nothing on record to demonstrates that at any point of time, deceased
was instigated or provoked by the appellant No.1 to commit suicide. The
appellant No.1 is in jail for last more than 1 year and there is no likelihood of
early hearing of the present appeal in near future. The appellant No.1 cannot
be kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, the appeal filed by him may turn
infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Under these
circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant No.1.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3333/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the
appellant No.1-Dinesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant
No.1 shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant No.1-Dinesh, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark
their presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/03/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4569/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant is still
absconding.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to surrender the
appellant before the trial Court, thereafter, IA No. 4791/2018 will be
considered.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.8092/2018x
(Pushkar & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7618/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellants.
Appellants have been found guilty for offence under Section 420
and 120(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each respectively with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
trial Court till 12/11/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7618/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of
this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List the appeal in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.8194/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the court below be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.No.3416/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akshat Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5484/2018, an application
for staying the operation of order dated 26/06/2018 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dhar in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016 .
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and findings given by
the trial Court in para Nos. 10, 11, 15, 25 and 26 of the impunged order, IA No.
5484/2018 is hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the operation of the
impugned order dated 26/06/2018 passed in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016
shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 26/11/2018 on the question of admission.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.43798/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Satanand Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extension of time to deposit the amout of Rs.4.00
Lacs as directed by this Court, vide order dated 21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.
No. 31043/2018.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, last opportunity
of 7 working days is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to deposit
Rs.4:00 Lacs before the trial Court.
This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018 and
21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and 31043/2018 respectively. A
copy of this order be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and
31043/2018.
With the aforesaid directions this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
(Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.306/2018, Police Station-Ranapur,
District-Jhabua, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)
(n) and 506 of the IPC alongwith Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41057/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a
week's time to verify the documents filed by the applicant in support of
his bail application.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41571/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
granted time to file written objection.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41593/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Sarawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
(Vishal @ Rajiv Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.15/2018, Police Station-
Rampura, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 363
and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
(Sheikh Alim Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.239/2018, Police Station-Azad
Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 302/34 of the
IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40075/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week's time to cure
the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5047/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5151/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5123/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision is admitted for final hearing.
This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401
of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 10/10/2018 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.89/2015 confirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/01/2015 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.
2483/2010, whereby the applicants have been convicted for offence
punishable under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each with default
stipulation.
Heard on I.A. No.7532/2018, an application under Section 397
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of the applicants.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
courts's below have committed error in convicting the applicants and
therefore, the correctness of the findings have been challenged. It is also
submitted that the applicants were on bail during the trial and the liberty
so granted was not misused by them. There are fair chances of success
of this revision and the applicants cannot be kept in custody
unnecessarily, otherewise this revision filed by them may turn
infructuous. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
This Court, after carefully going through the record and after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that
I.A.No.7532/2018 deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of the remaining sentence awarded to the applicants shall
remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition and they
shall be released on bail subject to depositing compensation amount and
on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only)each with one separate solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court
on 08/02/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this
regard by the Registry.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 711/2016
Indore dated : 30/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for
issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @
Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested
by the Police on 22/10/2018 and produced before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur.
Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is
produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head
Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He
be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering
remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1323/2008
(Gaja & Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:29/10/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Akhilesh Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7530/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of conviction of appellant
No.2-Santosh S/o Makrani.
Appellant No.2-Santosh has been convicted under Section 326 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 17/11/2008
passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No. 126/2006.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
filed the present Criminal Appeal on 21/11/2008 alongwith application for
suspension of custodial sentnece, which was admitted for final hearing and
his application for suspension of custodial sentence was allowed by this
Court, vide order dated 25/11/2008 and he was directed to be released on
bail upon furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with a surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court 05/01/2009 and thereafter as
may be directed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that after released
on bail since approximately last 10 years, the appellant has regularly
marked his presence before the Registry of this Court. It is also submits
that the appellant No.2-Santosh belongs to the Scheduled Tribes
community and he is highly qualified person. He is eligible for various
employments and is having bright future. Father of the appellant-Markani
S/o Chogalal, who was working as Teacher in Govt. school and during the
pendency of this appeal, he died on 06/09/2011. After that he became
eligible to seek compassionate appointment and the benefit of
compassionate appointment can be obtained by him within 7 years from
the death of his father, however, due to conviction in the criminal case, he
could not avail the opportunity of compassionate appointment and very
soon he will become over age. His carrier is suffering due to continuously
losing opportunities and thus forced to darken his bright future in waiting
for disposal of present appeal. The appellant also wants to contest the
election, which is going to be held in November, 2018.
It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
that as per the findings given by the trial Court, there was no pre-
meditation and it is a case of free fight. It is further submitted that both the
parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise. They
have moved an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for
compounding the offence, which has been kept pending by this Court
contending that this application shall be considered at the time of final
hearing of this appeal. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension
of conviction of the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is settled position of law that the appellate Court has the power
to suspended the conviction under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.,
however, in the case of Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 2007 SC 1003 and Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhoma S. Bagli,
(2007) 1 SCC 673, the Hon'ble apex Court has held that stay of the
order of conviction by an appellate court is an exception. It is accepted
from the person seeking stay that he should specifically draw the
attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if
the conviction is not stayed. However, grant of stay can be resorted to
in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.
In the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble apex Court
after examining the contention made on behalf of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant, it reveals that the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and as per the
findings given by the trial Court, there is specific allegation against
the appellant that he has caused grievous injury to injured Mukut by
Dhariya, which is also found prove by the trial Court. It is submitted
that the present appeal is pending since 2008 and during the pendency
of this appeal father of the appellant has died in the year 2011,
however, the appellant has not filed any document to demonstrate that he
is the only eligible person in his family, who can apply for the
compassionate appointment and the same has been rjected on the ground
that he is the convicted person in criminal case. The appellant has not filed
any application for early hearing till September, 2018 and first time on
05/09/2018, he has filed an application for early hearing before this Court,
which was disposed of with following directions to the Registry:-
1. To process the main admitted matter, if ready in all
respects, as per its turn, under caption "High Court Expedited
Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases,
whichever is earlier.
2. Parties is at liberty to apprise the Registrar (Judicial)
about any other suitable priority category in which the main
admitted matter can proceed in addition to "High Court
Expedited Cases" or the caption already assigned by the
Registry. The Registrar (Judicial) after due scrutiny shall issue
instructions to the concerned Dealing Assistant to update the
main matter in such other appropriate category, so that the same
can proceed for final hearing in the category, wherever it is
earlier, as per the CMIS software.
3. Further liberty is granted to the parties mention the main
matter, in cases of exceptional urgency, for appropriate
directions before DB-I, by way of mentioning slip without
filing any formal application for urgent hearing.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
of the view that after lapse of 10 years of filing of this appeal, the prayer
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant for suspension of
conviction is not deemed to be acceptable. Accordingly, IA No. 7530/2018
is hereby dismissed.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43003/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41248/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
granted time to file written objection.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41270/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39997/2018x
(Vikram Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.125/1997, Police Station-Nanpur,
District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under Section 34(1) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40740/2018x
(Vinit Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sjuraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 471, 467, 468, 419,
420 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41804/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri R.S. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42948/2018x
(Ashish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.1262/2018, Police Station-Excise
Department, Barwaha, District-Barwaha, concerning offence under
Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42960/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce case-diary of the
present case along with case-diary of Crime No.245/2018 registered at
Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42974/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42990/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri K.C. Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43011/2018x
(Sheetal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.430/2018, Police Station-
M.I.G., District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 380, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of complainant before the trial Court .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Cetified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42442/2018x
(Balchand Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Yogesh
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.138/2018, Police Station-
Chhapiheda District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Sections 342,
376 and 506/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7448/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellants, the case is
adjourned.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42432/2018x
(Chainsingh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.323/2018, Police-Station-Nahargarh,
District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42437/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42438/2018x
(Shyam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.285/2018, Police-Station-Anjad,
District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 302 and 294 of
the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the eye witness before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42443/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42446/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42451/2018x
(Mayank Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.438/2018, Police-Station-Shujalpur,
District-Shajapur, concerning offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42455/2018x
(Phulsingh @ Phulchand Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.169/2018, Police-Station-Sitamhow,
District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366(A),
376(D), 376(2)(A), 506, 109 and 370 of the IPC alongwith Sections
5(G)/6 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42461/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1323/2008x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel alongwith Shri Iqbal
Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the case
is adjourned.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7792/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the copy of the proceedings of the trial Court.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41138/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41174/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41304/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41710/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41862/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to keep available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41908/2018x
(Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.699/2018, Police-Station-Excise
Department, Mandleshwar, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under
Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23262/2017x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grated three
weeks' time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.29242/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for time to argue
the matter.
This bail application is pending since July, 2018, therefore, by way
of last indulgence time is granted.
List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the copy of statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the
trial Court.
List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43565/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the certified
copy of the complete proceedings of the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41874/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cure
the defects.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4350/2017x
(Rajesh @ Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5430/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant - Rajesh @ Kaliya, who has been found guilty for offence
under Section 307 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 7
years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant did
not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination, therefore,
alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. During the
pendency of this appeal, both the parties have moved an application under
Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for compromise. The appellant is in custody
since 28/01/2017 and he has already completed approximately 1 years and
9 months of his jail sentence. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous. Under
these circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
for grant of bail to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that complainant-Manoj Chandel deposed
against the appellant in his examination-in-chief and on the request of the
counsel for the defence his cross-examination was reserved and after that
he turned hostile, which indicates the complainant was win over by the
appellant. As per the MLC report of complainant-Manoj, 6 incised wounds
were found on his body. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection
of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 5430/2018 is hereby rejected.
However, the appellant-Rajesh @ Kaliya is granted liberty to renew his
prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail sentence.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6304/2018x
(Bablu Sheikh Pathan Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6269/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant - Bablu, who has been found guilty for offence under Section
392 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years
and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant that
there was no named FIR against the appellant. It is alleged that
complainant-Durga Bai (PW 1) has identified the appellant in Test
Identification Parade and she also identified the gold and silver ornaments,
which were recovered from the appellant, however, Durga Bai (PW 1)
accepted in her cross-examination that before test identification parade, she
was called to the Police-Station, where she had already seen the
photograph of the appellant and thereafter, T.I.P. was arranged. Hence,
when the complainant was having an opportunity to view the photograph
of appellant, then the evidence of T.I.P. goes away. Similarly, the
independent witnesses have not supported the memorandum and the
seizure memo, from which gold and silver ornaments were alleged to have
been recovered from the appellant. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, the
appellant cannot be convicted for the aforesaid offence. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in
custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn
infructuous. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that the robbed property has been recovered
from the possession of the applicant, which is duly proved by the
prosecution from the statement of A.S.I. -N.B.S. Kushwaha (PW 7) and
an auto rickshaw was also seized from the appellant, in which the
complainant was taken away by the appellant. The robbed articles were
also duly identified by the complainant during identification parade
conducted by Tehsildar-Smt. Pallavi Puranik (PW 8), therefore, there is
sufficient evidence is available on record, on the basis of which the
appellant was convicted for the alleged offence by the trial Court. Under
these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 6269/2018 is hereby rejected.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3413/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4012/2018, an
application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence on behalf of appellant-Dungar Singh.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw IA No. 4012/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.4012/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40332/2018
(Narendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant-
Balvinder Singh.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the objector-Sarvesh
Jhavar.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.256/2017, Police Station-
Nanakheda, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC. First application of the applicant came
to be dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide, order dated
13/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9373/2018.
As per prosecution case, applicant-Narendra Patel and his
brother Laxmikant Patel proposed before complainant-Balvinder
Singh to purchase land bearing Survey No. 30, admeasuring 0.470
hectares situated at village Goyalkhurd. In this regard an
agreement/MOU was executed by Narendra Patel in favour of
complainant-Balvinder Singh and from time to time he received
Rs.35.00 Lacs from complainant-Balvinder Singh by way of part
consideration including Rs.4.0 Lacs through a cheque. However, later
on it was revealed that the land, which was proposed to be sold by the
applicant to complainant is of a Govt. land and the applicant is not
having any right or title over the aforesaid land and by this act the
applicant and his brother-Laxmikant have cheated the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the land in
question was belongs to Mangilal and 4 others and they sold this land
to one Jitendra Singh residents of Ujjain on 09/04/2012 by a registered
sale-deed. Thereafter, Jitendra Singh had entered into an agreement
with the present applicant-Narendra Patel on 11/04/2014. On the
execution of the said agreement, the applicant gave Rs. 6.0 Lacs to
Jitendra Singh as token amount and after that the present applicant had
entered into agreement with the complainant on 21/12/2014. It is
further submitted that Khasra Panch-Sala of the land in question
demonstrates that the aforesaid land was in the name of Mangilal and
4 others till the year 2013-2014 and thereafter, the land was in the
name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain for the year 2014-2015. Hence,
when the applicant had entered into an agreement with the
complainant on 21/12/2014 at that time the aforesaid land was not
registered in the name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain, therefore, the
applicant has not committed any offence with the complainant. It is
also contended that the applicant is in custody since 14/11/2017.
Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of
trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned
counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant/objector
and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application by
contending that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has
committed same nature of offence at Indore. The applicant was
declared absconder in the year 2016 and thereafter, he was arrested by
the Police. It is further submitted that the applicant fradulently
received Rs. 35.0 Lacs from the complainant-Balvinder Singh and
entered into an agreement regarding the sale of land, which was not
belongs to him. Under these circumstances, they prayed for rejection
of bail application.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and looking to the facts and cirucmtances of the case,
this Court is of the view that no case for grant of bail to the applicant
is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4950/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7313/2018, an
application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for correction in the order
dated 20/08/2018 passed in IA No. 5864/2018, by which the appellant
No.4-NIrmala Bai was directed to mark her presence before A.C.J.M.,
Mhow.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the custodial
sentence of appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was suspended by this Court,
vide order dated 30/07/2018 and she was ordered to be released on bail
on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
her appearance before the C.J.M., Indore on 03/10/2018. Later on,
appellants moved an application i.e. IA No. 5864/2018 for correction in
the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated
20/08/2018 and appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was directed to mark her
presence before the A.C.J.M, Mhow instead of C.J.M., Indore. On
03/10/2018, when appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai went to the aforesaid
Court for marking her presence, then she was informed that there is no
Court of A.C.J.M, Mhow, therefore, her presence was not marked.
Looking to the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the appellants
prayed that appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai may be directed to mark her
presence before the Registry of this Court instead the Court of A.C.J.M,
Mhow.
Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the prayer.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, IA No. 7313/2018 is hereby
allowed.
Appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai is directed to mark her presence
before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2018 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.722/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Gulab Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5007/2018
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4272/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4271/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38618/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Ajay Baswan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, accepts the notice on behalf of the
applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39195/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42222/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8653/2017x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17464/2017x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28556/2017xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Ms. Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for the applicants.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.966/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two
weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.1220/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2184/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time
to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37598/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Shakti Singh Dhakray, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.
List on 29/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3852/2018x
(Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The applicant has filed IA No.6022/2018, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining custodial
sentence of the applicant-Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir.
The applicant has preferred this revision petition against the
judgment dated 02/08/2018 passed by XIVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 435/2017, whereby the appeal preferred
by the applicant has been dismissed by affirming the conviction and
sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal
Case No. 13445/2008 for the offence under Sections 10(a) and 13(1) of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .
In the revision petition application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Looking to the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the
applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file an application
for amendment in the cause-title of this application.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5320/2018x
(Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5512/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant - Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu, who has been found guilty for
offence under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section
¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years, 05 years, 10 years
and 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- , Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
As per ossification test report the age of the prosecutrix is found to be
above 18 years. Prosecutrix stated in her statement that at the instance of
her maternal aunt, she has gone with the applicant and remained with
him for a considerable period in Bhopal and Indore. During this period
she neither made any complaint against the appellant regarding
abduction or commission of rape nor tried to run away from his
company. The prosecutrix also executed an affidavit regarding contract
of marriage with the applicant, in which she mentioned her date of birth
as 21/10/1995, which clearly shows that she was major and consenting
party. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of
this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
the application and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
the jail sentence of the appellant-Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu.
Accordingly, I.A. No.5512/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2590/2018x
(Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4638/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant - Santosh, who has been found guilty for offence under
Sections 366, 366(A) and 376(2)(N) of the IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years, 05 years and 10 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- , Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
The prosecutrix is a major lady and she had left her house with her own
will. During the pendency of the trial both the parties have entered into
marriage and they are living together. They have also moved an
application for compromise before the trial Court, however, aforesaid
offences registered against the appellant are non-compoundable,
therefore, the same was not considered. The prosecutrix executed an
affidavit in favour of the appellant, in which she categorically stated that
under the pressure of her parents she has made the statement against the
appellant and now she wanted to live and reside with the appellant,
therefore, she has no objection in allowing the application for
suspension of his jail sentence and aforesaid facts have been supported
by the learned counsel for the complainant/objector. It is further
submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper
manner. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success
of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
the application and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
the jail sentence of the appellant-Santosh.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4638/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the
execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against
the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this
appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40214/2018x
(Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 23/10/2018
Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicants are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.219/2018
registered at Police-Station-Bilpank, District-Ratlam, for the offence
punishable under Sections 353, 506 and 451/34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 01/05/2018 at about 5:00 p.m.,
the complainant, who is a government employee and was working in
his MPEB office at that time the applicants forcefully entered into the
premises and started hurling obscenities directed towards the
complainant. They also tried to drag the complainant outside the office
and obstructed him from discharging his duty.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants are active members of the civil society. Complaint was
made by the residents of village-Bilpank against the present
complainant in the month of January 2018, therefore, the complaint
was angry with the applicants and other residents of village-Bilpank,
hence, he lodged the false complaint against the present applicants. No
incident as alleged has taken place. Even if all the allegations made in
the complaint are believed, the offences registered against the
applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. The
applicants undertakes that they will completely cooperate with the
investigation and will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed
by this Court. Under these circumstances, learned Senior counsel for
the applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that the applicants entered into the office of
the complainant and they assaulted him and tried to obstruct him from
discharging his duties. Therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicants are not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage this
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, this application is hereby rejcted. However, the
applicants are at liberty to surrender before the trial Court and moved
an appropriate application for regular bail.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41686/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri R.K. Gondale, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of
marriage of applicant's sister and submit its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List on 26/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41749/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41767/2018x
(Bhupendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri D.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.573/2018, Police Station-
Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Section 25
of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after one and half
months.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the medical
papers of the applicant's wife and submit its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39056/2018x
(Amit & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.425/2018, Police Station-
Hatpipaliya, District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections
354(A)(D), 341 and 506/34 of the IPC .
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the victim before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/N.C.B.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail
application of co-accused-Kanhaiyalal has been decided by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 7449/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for the
complainant/Objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7335/2018, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 59 days in filing this appeal.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
delay of 59 days in preferring this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.7335/20185/2018 is allowed and delay of 59
days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40713/2018x
( Chand Mohd. & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 114/2018, Police Station-
Niwali, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 4,6 and 9
of Madhya Pradesh Gou Vansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and
Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and
Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
alongwith Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicants seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.33104/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Rohan Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
From the perusal of the case-diary, it appears that the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her MLC
report are not available with the case-diary.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the aforesaid
documents alongwith the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
seven days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39438/2018x
( Faeem Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 428/2011, Police
Station-Nagda Mandi, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
Sections 302, 506, 294 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the medical papers of the applicant filed alongwith bail
application, no case for temporary bail, as prayed is made out.
Accrodingly, M.Cr.C. No. 39438/2018 is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37657/2018x
( Prabhulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 03/2018, Police Station-
Bhojpur, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Sections 147,
148, 149, 294, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40195/2018x
( Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 823/2018, Police Station-Lasudiya,
District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 376(2)(N), 366
and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40299/2018x
( Sunil Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 137/2011, Police Station-Badwah,
District-Khargone, concerning offence under Sections 399 and 402 of
the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40828/2018x
(Rahul Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.408/2018, Police Station-Tukoganj,
District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323
and 506 of the IPC .
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41242/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41244/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41248/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.620/2017x
(Sattu & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7123/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.4-Babulal.
Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 147 ,
450 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to 1 years R.I., 5 years R.I.
and life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.
200/- respectively for each offence with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
No.4-Babulal was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the eye witnessess of
the incident, namely, Kamlabai (PW 1), Ratan Kevat (PW 2) and
Rukmabai (PW 3) had not supported the prosecution case and have
turned hostile. The appellant No.4-Babulal has been convicted on the
basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is
treated as dying declaration, however, in the aforesaid report the
allegation against the appellant is that he hurled filthy language upon
deceased and he has caused injuries to the deceased by kicks and fists,
due to which he sustained injuries on his stomach and died during the
treatment. The appellant-Babulal was not having any weapon at the time
of occurrence and incident has taken place all of a sudden, therefore, he
cannot be held guilty for causing death of deceased-Nanda. Application
for suspension of custodial sentence of other appellants have already
been allowed by this Court and the case of the appellant-Babulal is
similar to them. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant No.4-
Babulal.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
submitting that the present applicant is prime accused and in the dehati
nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is treated as
dying declaration, there are specific allegation against the appellant
No.4-Babulal that he hurled filthy languages upon the deceased and
caused him injuries by kicks and fists on his vital part i.e. stomach and
because of this, the deceased was died, therefore, the appellant cannot
claim parity with other co-acccused person, who were granted bail by
this Court. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.
On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, at this
stage, no case for grant of suspension of remaining custodial jail
sentence of appellant-Babulal is made out. Accordingly, IA No.
7123/2018 is dismissed. However, the appellant-Babulal is granted
liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail
sentence.
List in due course.
(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3857/2018x
(Dara Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6107/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Dara Singh.
Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections
120(B) and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively for each offence with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not
named in the FIR nor he participated in the alleged incident. He has also
drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 87
of the impugned order and submitted that there is no cogent material
available on record regarding conviction of the appellant with the aid of
Section 120(B) of the IPC . It is further submitted that the case of the
applicant is similar to co-accused Shivam @ Shiv Om, whose
application for suspension of custodial sentence has already been
allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/08/2018 passed in Cr.A. No.
3774/2018, therefore, on the ground of parity, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Dara Singh.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection.
On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it reveals that except the fact that the appellant
brought his motorcycle in the workshop of Hemant Chawda (PW 1) for
repairing, which is used in the offence and there is no other evidence
available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime , thus
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA No.6107/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on
furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Darasingh in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5827/2018x
(Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6627/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
Mahesh.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have been found guilty for offence under
Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three
years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/-
respectively with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the
statement of sole eyewitness Indrapal (PW 10), the allegation against
the present appellants that they were member of unlawful assembly but
no overt act has been attributed to them. The main allegation of causing
head injury is against co-accused-Darbar, who was armed with axe and
inflicted, head injury to the deceased. The suspension of custodial
sentence of appellant No.1-Bharat has already been suspended by this
Court, vide order dated 31/08/2018 and the role of the appellant Nos. 2
to 4 is similar to him. Under these circumstances he prays for
suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, IA No. 6627/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
Mahesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each
with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the
appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4603/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6910/2018, an
application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants-
Omprakash and Sagarmal.
The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo 3 years R.I. and 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-
each respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
not named in the FIR. Although in the test identification parade they
were identified by the prosecution witness- Gopal Das (PW 4),
however, the test identification proceedings has not been conducted
according to the prescribed procedure, therefore, this identification has
no value. It is also submitted that there are only general and omnibus
allegations are levelled against the applicants. It further submitted that
there are fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant
cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has
been awarded by the Courts' below, otherwise the present revision
petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for suspension
of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application by contending that the trial Court and the appellate Court
after due appreciation of the material available on record found the
charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. It is
also submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding re-
appreciation of evidence is very limited. Injured-Girdharilal sustained
grievous injuries on his eye and he has lost his eyesight. Injured and
other witnesses did not know the applicants at the time of incident
and there statements have been recorded after lapse of 13 years of the
incident, therefore, it cannot be accepted that they are in position to
narrate the incident as it was happened. The applicants are convicted
for the 3 years, however, they are in custody for last one month,
therefore, it cannot be said that if the jail sentence of the applicants is
not suspended, then their revision may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly,
IA No. 6910/2018 is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7447/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted three
weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40841/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40819/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7420/2018x
(Ajay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7157/2018-an
application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellants.
Appellants have been found guilty for offence under Section
435/34 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
trial Court till 15/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7157/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of
this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37818/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3209/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4954/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No./State.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, accepts the notice on behalf of the
applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40214/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed
some documents in support of the bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the documents by
next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36981/2018x
( Raychandra @ RamchandraVs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 231/2018, Police Station-Neemuch
City, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 307, 294,
506 and 427/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39426/2018x
(Ramesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 490/2017, Police Station-Bilpank,
District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the
NDPS Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39582/2018x
( Dinesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41446/2018x
( Tejpal Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri B.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
Indore dated : 12/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41238/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
From the perusal of the case-diary it appears that although the
statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C., however, same is not placed alongwith the case-
diary.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by next
date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks'
granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks'
granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1320/2018x
(Kamal Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 09/10/2018
Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/07/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District-Agar in Cri.Appeal No.123/2015, confirming the judgment dated 28/02/2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalkheda, District-Agar in Criminal Case No.393/2010, by which the applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I., 1 years R.I., 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for each offence respectively. The applicant No.1 Kamal is also convicted for the offence punishalbe under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act and he has been sentenced to undergo 1 years RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25/11/2010 at about 7:45 p.m., the complainant Tejkaran was going alongwith his bhabhi-Antabai to his house, when he reached near the house of Unkar, the applicants came there and applicant No.1 started abusing him and gave a sword blow on the head of the complainant, thereafter, applicant No.3-Omprakash entered into the house armed with sword and stick and assaulted him. When his wife came there to rescue him then Kamal gave a sword blow on her head. After hearing hue and cry when Ramesh and Pappu came there to rescue them then applicant No.2- Gokul gave a pharsi blow on the neck of Pappu. Gokul and co-accused Dinesh also assaulted the Ramesh and his Bhabhi with pharsi and stick respectively, due to which they sustained injuries. After the incident, complainant-Tejkaran lodged an FIR at Police Station-Nalkheda and on that basis case was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC alongwith Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act at Crime No. 198/2010. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Nalkheda, District- Agar.
3. After framing the charges and recording the evidence, the offences under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 IPC alongwith Section 25(1B)(b) were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the applicants has alternatively submitted that the applicants are in custody since 07/03/2018 and they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of Sheikh Naushad (PW 1), complainant-Tejkaran (PW 2), Sushil (PW 3), Ramesh (PW 4), Pappu (PW 5), Smt. Annu (PW6), Guddi Bai (PW 7), Kailash (PW 8), Narendra Singh (PW 9), Manguji (PW 10), Babulal ( PW 11), Dr. R.K. Tiwari (PW 12) and Babulal Malviya (PW 13). Hence, considering the material available on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC and the applicant No.1-Kamal for the offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, also.
7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, as minimum sentence of one year is presribed for the offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act , therefore, the conviction and jail sentence awarded by the courts' below with respect to applicant No.1-Kamal is hereby affirmed, however, looking to the nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants have already remained approximately 7 months in jail, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 namely, Gokul and Omprakash for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.600/- for each offence, within a period of thirty days. Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Tejkaran as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Gokul and Omprakash shall suffer 20-20 days RI respectively under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC.
With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.
Record of the courts' below alongwith a copy of this order be sent back to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K.Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4622/2018x Indore dated :09/10/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State. Shri S.S. Ali, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6932/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Anis Ali.
The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D) and 341 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and 1 month R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and Rs.100/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. It also submitted that there are fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has been awarded by the Courts' below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by him may turn infructuous. It is further submitted that the marriage of the applicant's son is going to be solemnized on 21/10/2018 and his presence on the aforesaid ceremony is necessary. Under these circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant/objector have opposed the application . It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material available on record found the charges proved against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. They further submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding re-appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances they prays for rejection of the application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence awarded to the applicant by the courts below. However, looking to the fact that marriage of the applicant's son is going to be held on 21/10/2018 and his presence on the aforesaid ceremony is necessary. Accordingly, IA No. 6932/2018 is allowed for limited period. The applicant-Anis Ali be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of his release on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lacs Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to an undertaking that he will surrender himself after completion of 15 days period from the date of his release and remanded back to the custody. The trial Court is also directed to intimate this Court whether the applicant shall surrender or not?
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40699/2018x ( Lav Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
Heard. Case-diary is perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.298/2018, Police Station- P.N.B., District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections 376(2)
(n),342 and 506 of the IPC. First application has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 20/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 32362/2018.
As per prosecution story, on 09/05/2018 at about 11:30 a.m., complainant went to village Avaliya, Pipaliya Phate for her treatment, where she met with applicant and he took her to Dewas on his motorcycle on the pretext of treatment he committed rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and there are material inconsistencies in their statements, which clearly shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix in the present case. Applicant is in custody since 21/05/2018. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstnces, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application by contending that the prosecutrix is deposed against the applicant and there are sufficient material available on record against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that 6 witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and the trial is now at advance stage, at this stage appreciation of the evidence is not required. Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40717/2018 ( Jitendra Pal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
Heard. Case-diary is perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.364/2018, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Shajapur, concerning offences under Sections420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 22/08/2018 complainant-Anoop Singh lodged the FIR against the applicant alleging that he constituted a fake company in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated Company without taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of sanction of loan amount, he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons and issued them forged receipt.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The FIR has been lodged after 4 months of the alleged incident. Matter relates to civil dispute and FIR has been lodged with intent to convert it into criminal case. The applicant is in custody since 23/08/2018. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. It is also submitted that mother of the applicant is suffering from cancer and there is no one in his family to look after her. Under these circumstances, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali Vs. State of Chattisgarh, Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Vikram Narayan Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, State of U.P. Through C.B.I. V. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, Akhtari Bi (Smt.) V. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355 & order passed by High Court of M.P., in the case of Khuman Singh Rajput Vs. Superintendent of Police, Datia & Another, 2017 (II) MANISA 83(M.P.) & Aditya Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2015 (1) M.P.H.T. 48.
On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the applicant constituted a fake company in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated Company without taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of sanction of loan amount he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons and issued them forged receipt and he collected Rs. 70 to 75 Lacs from the beneficiaries and fled away, therefore, looking to the conduct of the applicant, no sufficient ground for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there are sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with alleged crime, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present case because they are passed on merits after recording the evidence. Under these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x ( Anil Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.453/2016, Police Station- Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 302, 307, 147,148, 149, 506, 452 and 427 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is two weeks' granted time to file relevant documents.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37441/2018x ( Shubham Joshi Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.517/2018, Police Station-Mahakal, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 324, 327, 294 and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37906/2018x ( Devi Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri Deepesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.226/2018, Police Station- Pipalrawan, District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections 354, 354(A)(1) and 506 of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38024/2018x ( Shankar Mehar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 10/10/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.89/2018, Police Station-Badawda, District-Ratlam, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)
(n) & 376(2)(D) of the IPC alongwith Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40628/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.39465/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file certain documents.
List on 12/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.39174/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34427/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of affidavit filed by Anil son of the applicant and submit its report by the next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6736/2018x (Rupsingh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:10/10/2018 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6661/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Rupsingh, who has been found guilty for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only allegation against the appellant is that he assaulted injured-Sardar Singh by lathi, due to which he sustained injuries on his head, which are found to be simple in nature. It is alleged that co-accused Dule Singh fired on injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1) by country made pistol, due to which he sustained injuries on his chest, however, as per the statement of Doctor S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot injuries were found on the chest of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No medical opinion is available on record to show that the injuries sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was fatal or sufficient to cause his death in natural course of life. Under these circumstances no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant, however, the learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence available on record in proper prospects and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Rupsingh.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6661/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Rupsingh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6280/2018x (Dule Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:10/10/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6257/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Dule Singh, who has been found guilty for offence under Section 307 of the IPC alongwith Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 500/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although in the FIR and in the statement of complainant-Bharat Singh (PW 1), it has come that the appellant fired on him by country made pistol, due to which he sustained injuries on his chest and this evidence is also corroborated by prosecution witnesses Bapu Singh (PW 3) and Lakhandas (PW 9), however, as per the statement of Doctor S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot injuries were found on the chest of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No medical opinion is available on record to show that the injuries sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was fatal or sufficient to cause his death in natural course of life. Under these circumstances, the charge for offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not found proved against the appellant, however, the learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence available on record in proper prospects and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06/06/2015 and he has already completed more than 3 years and 4 months of custodial sentence. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Dule Singh.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6257/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Dule Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 6673/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri Ajay Bagadiya with Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6825/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing this appeal.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.6825/2018 is allowed and delay of 14 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4494/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharm, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 39638/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the copy of statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 40590/2018x Indore dated :10/10/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 1778/2013 (Aditya Sharma & Ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.) Indore dated :04/10/2018 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 &
3. Heard.
The applicants have preferred this petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") calling in question order dated 28/01/2013, passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, District Shajapur in Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 affirming the order dated 06/10/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 921/2006, whereby the charges for offence under Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC have been framed against the applicants.
2. The facts of the case which are relevant for deciding this petition are that on 19/07/2005, Bhupendra Gaur an employee of respondent No.1-Nagar Palika Parishad, Shajapur came to the applicants' house for demarcation and assessment of property tax, during this some dispute arose between them. Allegedly as per complainant-Bhupendra Gaur, he was abused and deterred from performing public duties. Complainant-Bhupendra Gaur made a written complaint against the applicants at police-station Shajapur, however, the police did not take any action on that report, then he filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur. Thereafter, statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.and after that vide order dated 12/04/2006, learned Magistrate has issued process against the applicants upon finding prima-facie case against them for the offence under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC.
3. Feeling aggrieved by order of taking cognizance, a revision petition has been preferred by the applicants before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 and final order was passed on 28/01/2013, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed on the ground that the contentions raised by the applicants are in nature of defence, which is offered by the present applicants and it cannot be considered at this stage and it will be available to the applicants during the course of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a report was also made by the applicants regarding the aforesaid incident against Bhupendra Gaur, R.K. Gupta, Bannesingh Ghourasiya, Naushad Ahmed and Duttaji Rao, all the employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Shajapur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323/149, 452, 292, 506(II) and 507 of the IPC at Police-Station-Shajapur. When police declined to registered the FIR then private complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, which was got registered vide order dated 12/04/2006. On 30/07/2009 both the parties have filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compromise, which was partly allowed by the trial Court by discharging the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., however, the trial Court framed the charge for offence under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC against the applicants. It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider that there is no resolution passed by the Nagar Palika to authorize Bhupendra Gaur to make demarcation of the applicants house, which gave rise to present bone of contention, therefore, the prosecution of the applicants are abuse of process of law. The trial court has also committed error of law by taking cognizance on the private complaint filed by CMO- Sanjesh Kumar Gupta, who was not authorize to make the aforesaid private complaint. Under these circumstances, looking to the fact that compromise was taken place between the parties, impugned order deserves to be quashed and the applicants be discharged from the aforesaid offences.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, he is not having any objection, if the prayer made by the applicants be accepted.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The contents of the statement made by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur reflects that specific allegations have been made against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC and there is sufficient material available on record for framing of charges against the applicants. The contentions raised by the applicants are in nature of defence, which is offered by the present applicants and it cannot be considered at this stage and it will be available to the applicants during the course of the trial.
8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and Ors, 2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of the High Court that the averments made in the complaint are imaginary is not based on any material. Even assuming that the complainant had a score to settle against the accused, the same by itself may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that at least a prima-facie case has been establish in view of the evidence on record.
9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.
10. This Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs. Satish Rohra, 2005 (4) MPLJ 380, has held in the following manner:-
"6. I have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and carefully perused the evidence and the material on record. Before considering the evidence and the material on record for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issuance of process has been made out or not, it may be mentioned at the very outset that the various documents and the reports filed by the petitioners/Company along with the petition can not be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance or at the stage of framing of the charge. The question whether prima facie case is made out or not has to be decided purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of taking cognizance or even at the stage of framing of the charge in order to thwart it. That right is granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary stage the material produced by the complainant alone is to be considered."
11. In the context of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC.
12. It is not disputed that the parties have entered into compromise and they have filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. permitting them to compound the offence, however, the aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court, looking to the facts that the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is non- compoundable offence.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is non-compoundable, however, it can be compounded if this Court permits such compounding of offence excersing extra ordinary jurisdiction granted to this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral V. Union of Territory, Chandigarh, 2013 AIR SC 518, in which relying the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5333), it has been held that the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where the offender and victim have settled their dispute considering the nature of gravity of crime. Henious and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
14. While dealing with the same issue, the Hon'ble apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has observed 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:
(I) 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.
(II) 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.
(III) Such a power is not 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 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.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 later 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.
(VII) 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 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."
15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral and Narinder Singh (supra), the offence registered against the applicants are relating to use of criminal force against the person, who is being a public servant working in order to execution of his duty and as such public servant with intent to deterred from discharging his duty as public servant, therefore, the offence registered against the applicants is of serious nature and generally treated as crime against the society not against the individual alone, therefore, this Court is of the view that the case pending against the applicants cannot be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
16. Accordingly, prayer for quashment of charges for offence under Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC framed against the applicants is hereby rejected and the trial Court is directed to proceed the trial in accordance with law.
Let records of the courts' below alongwith a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34955/2018x Indore dated :09/10/2018 Shri Manikant Sharma with Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Learned counsel for the complainant/objector submitted that third application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. has been disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05/04/2018 by granting liberty to the applicant to mention after completion of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, therefore, the matter should be listed before the same Bench.
Vide order dated 29/08/2018, the Office was directed to verify the matter and list the same before appropriate Bench. After examining the case, the Office has again listed the matter before this Court on the ground that 4th application of the applicant is dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution.
The complainant/objector is at liberty to raise this objection before the Office.
It is also submitted that the case is listed today for cross-examination of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Looking to the aforesaid reasons, the case is adjourned. List on 12/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.622/2017x (Kuldeep Saxena Vs. Pradeep Saxena) Indore dated : 09/10/2018 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.K. Gokhale, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Nahar, learned counsel for the respondent. After arguing for some time, learned Senior counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to file fresh complaint against respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4472/2018x Indore dated :09/10/2018 Shri Vijay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6763/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of applicant-Madanlal.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw IA No. 6763/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.6763/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x Indore dated : 09/10/2018 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Bhargava, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to verify the factum of affidavit filed by complainant-Jyoti D/o Bhagwan Tamre.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38957/2018x (Jamnabai Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 09/10/2018 Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 338/2018 registered at Police-Station-Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur, for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and moved an appropriate application for regular bail.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2947/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Heard on the question of admission. Revision seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final hearing. Suspension has already been granted to the applicant, therefore, no further order is required.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3181/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned. List after one month.
Meanwhile record of the courts' below be requisitioned.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3543/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to call for the case-diary.
List after a week.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4509/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5772/2018x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8447/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6918/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Shri Amber Pare, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Nitin Mandhaniya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicants appearing on behalf of the parties submits that the matter is going on to be settled within one month.
As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. List after a week.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7626/2017x Indore dated :06/10/2018 Shri Mitesh, Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9865/2017x (State of M.P. vs. Dilip) Indore dated :06/10/2018 Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard.
ORDER The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') seeking grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 15/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 24070/2010, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC.
From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the incident took place on 19/09/2010 and the FIR has been lodged on 06/10/2010 i.e. after delay of 15 days and no explanation for delayed FIR is on record.
Further considered the statement of Ganga Singh (PW 2) and the material available on record therein, in my concerned opinion the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed .
(J. K. Maheshwari) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.7053/2018x (Surresh Bairagi Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal filed under Section 14(2)A of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4097/2018x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2.
In absence of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the case is adjourned.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.39786/2018x (Mamta Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri A.L. Kharol, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.848/2017, Police Station-Lasudiya, District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(D), 344 and 346 of the IPC alongwith Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.39888/2018x (Nathulal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.169/2018, Police Station-Singoli, District-Neemuch, concerning offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of the IPC of the IPC alongwith Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34407/2018x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34812/2018x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 69/2011x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against appellant-Bhushan Singh has return unserved with the report that he was not found on his given address.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Bhushan Singh to secure his presence before this Court.
Superintendent of Police, Ujjain is directed to furnish the quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Bhushan Singh.
Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the appellant-Bhushan Singh is not received.
Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant- Bhushan Singh.
List on 07/01/2019.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1309/2012x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Applicant No.1- Kaluram @ Kalu is not present today. Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep present applicant No.1 - Kaluram @ Kalu before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 26/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.432/2013x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent No.15/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 584/2013x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Kamal Singh has return unserved with the report that he has absconded from the village since last five years.
Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Kamal Singh to secure his presence before this Court.
Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur is directed to furnish the quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Kamal Singh.
Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the appellant-Kamal Singh is not received.
Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Kamal Singh.
List on 08/01/2019.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1132/2014x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the report regarding death of appellant-Jagdish is not received.
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against the appellant-Jagdish for securing his presence before this Court on 13/11/2018.
List on 13/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.803/2012x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. It is pointed out by the Office that applicant No.3-Omprakash was present before the Registry of this Court on 15/11/2017 and he has signed the order sheet and Registry gave him next date of appearance on 16/04/2018, however, on the aforesaid date applicant No.3-Omprakash was not present before the Registry of this Court. From the perusal of the order sheets this report is found correct.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant No.3-Omprakash before this Court on 10/12/2018.
List on 10/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1102/2015x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Ramesh received unserved with the report that he has been convicted by the Sessions Court, Ratlam for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC for a period of 1 year and he is serving the jail sentence in District Jail, Ratlam.
Let production warrant be issued against the applicant-Ramesh for securing his presence before this Court on 25/10/2018.
List on 25/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1629/2015x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No. 1002/2018, an application for condonation of the applicant-Gopal, however, neither the applicant nor his counsel is present today before this Court, therefore, IA No. 1002/2018 is hereby dismissed.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant- Gopal for securing his presence before this Court on 20/11/2018.
List on 20/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1635/2015x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Bailable warrant issued against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh is not received.
Let fresh bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh for securing his presence before this Court on 16/11/2018.
List on 16/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.813/2016x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the appellant/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.883/2016x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against applicant-Chhaganlal received unserved with the report that he was not found on the given address.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant-Chhaganlal for securing his presence before this Court on 20/11/2018.
List on 20/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1494/2016x Indore dated :05/10/2018 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.564/2017x Indore dated :05/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the appellant/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22293/2018 (Nishchal Poundrik Vs. Smt. Suchitra & Ors.) Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.
Heard.
The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashment of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under Sections 12 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act').
4. The facts of the case which are releant for deciding this petition are that applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 03/12/2015 at Bhopal as per Hindu rituals and customs. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint case on 03/05/2017 against the applicant and his parents alleging cruel treatment towards her. The trial Court, vide order dated 03/05/2017 called the report of Project Officer and directed to registered the case against the applicant, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that as per para 9 of the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, it has been alleged that she was thrown out of the house in March, 2016. Hence the cause of action arose to the complainant in March, 2016, however, she has filed the complaint on 03/05/2017 i.e. After 13 months from the cause of action arose to her to file the complaint. As per Provision 28 of the Act provides the procedure for the proceedings under Sections 12, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the Act and clearly state that this proceedings shall be governed by the Provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Act further prohibits the court from laying down its on procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Act. Maximum punishment for violation of any of the order passed in Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been provided under Section 31 of the Act, wherein the maximum punishment for the breach of any of the order passed under this Act has been provided for maximum period of one year or within fine, which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both. Chapter 36 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 provides for limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. It is further submitted that in the sub-section 2 of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, it is clearly mentioned that the limitation period shall be one year for offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for quashment of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under Sections 12 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the ground of limitation.
4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.3/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Rebutting the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that any aggrieved person can file a complaint before the Protection Officer or the Magistrate. The present petition is filed under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2005 and not under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, so the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. neither applicable nor the petition is barred under this provision.
7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that marriagae of the applicant with the respondent No.1 solemnized on 03/12/2015 at Bhopal as per Hindu rituals and customs. As per the allegation the respondent No.1 was ousted from her matrimonial house by the applicant No.1 in the month of March, 2016 and she has filed the complaint against the applicant before the trial Court on 03/05/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 23 and 12 of the Act. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183, has observed as under:-
"12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Section 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005,"
8. In Yogesh Anantrai Bhatt and others Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 2017 Cri.L.J.615, Gujrat High Court has held as under :-
"In view of above discussion, if we scrutinize the different provisions of different sections under which some reliefs can be claimed, it becomes clear that as per section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person is permitted to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act and the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident reported and received by him from the Protection officer also. Further provision of Section 12 deals with jurisdiction of the Court in passing appropriate orders for compensation, etc. whereas sub-section (3) makes it clear that every application under sub-section (1) is to be filed in a prescribed form. So practically section 12 is enabling provision to file an application, whereas sections 18 to 22 are providing for rights of the aggrieved person to seek different reliefs like protection,residence, monetary relief, custody of minor and compensation. For all such reliefs, when provisions of the Code are to be followed, then practically there is no limitation prescribed under the Code for any of such reliefs viz.
protection, residence, monetary relief, custody of minor and compensation. However, when section 28 says that procedure is to be followed as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, then it amounts to dealing with an application under section 12 as an application for all such orders and nothing more than that, more particularly when section 468 of the Code is not providing limitation for any such proceedings either under the Code itself where provision for maintenance is there under section 125, if we peruse the provision of section 468 of the Code,which specifically talks about bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Therefore, it is quite clear and certain that cognizance of offence is to be taken and thereby when there is no incident of commission of any offence while applying under section 12 for any of the orders under sections 18 to 22 which are referred hereinabove, since there are no offences, there is no reason for taking cognizance and, therefore, there is no reason to rely upon the provisions of section 468 of the Code in case of an application under section 12 of the DV Act. To be more precise, if we peruse the provisions of section 468, then also it becomes clear that the period of limitation is referred with the period of punishment i.e. limitation would be six months, if the offence punishable with fine only; one year for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and three years for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Therefore, when penal provision is only under section 31 of the DV Act, the provisions of section 468 of the Code would be applicable only when there is an application under section 31 of the DV Act and not otherwise. It is clear position that section 31 of the DV Act provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both for breach of protection order or of an interim protection order by the respondent and, therefore, limitation would be applicable only after breach of an order in an application under section 12 and, therefore, such limitation cannot be applicable at the stage of an application under section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22. Thereby, it is certain that if there is a breach of an order in an application under section 12 or any of the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 then and then only the application under section 31 is to be filed within one year from the date of such breach and not thereafter, and thereby it cannot be said that an applications under section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22 are also required to be filed within a period of 12 months because in that case, when there is no penal provision,there is no reason to consider limitation at all."
9. Keeping all the facts and circumstances as stated above, the legal proposition as above mentioned, there is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, hence, do not required any interference.
10. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 8775/2018x (Piyush Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Applicant is present in person.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER ( 05 /10/2018) The applicant has challenged the order dated 27/01/2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 27461/2015, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against respondent No.2 has been rejected.
2. The facts are lying in narrow compass are that on 14/04/2015, FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 registered at Police-Station Sarafa, Indore against Vijay Singh Chandel agitating that on 14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing to his son Vikram Verma after retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the applicant went to the jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his necklace then respondent No.2 informed him that he has given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost the same. Then respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel and on that basis an offence under Section 406 of the IPC was registered against aforesaid Vijay Singh Chandel. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
3. Applicant is submitted that he has filed an application under Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against respondent No. 2, who is the Proprietor of Ms. Roopal Jwellery shop and he was also present at the shop when the applicant/complainant handed over the necklace to Vikram Verma. He further submitted that respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma lodged the FIR only against Vijay Singh Chandel to Police-Station-Sarafa, whereas the necklace was received by Vikram Verma and respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Sharma, however, no report was lodged against them. Respondent No.2 Satish Chandra Verma is also involved in the misappropriation of the necklace belongs to the applicant . There are CCTV cameras' installed in the shop of the respondent No.2 but no CCTV footage was provided by him to the police so that it cannot be discovered that who has taken the aforesaid necklace. Therefore, respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is the person, who is also involved in the misappropriation of the necklace belongs to the applicant. Inspite of that Police has not made him accused, hence, he also be impleaded as accused in the case. But the aforesaid application was dismissed without considering the material available on record, which was brought by the applicant. It is also submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting his application filed under Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the trial Court be directed to take cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC against respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma.
4. On the other hand respondents contended that the impugned order is not suffered from any perversity, therefore, it may not be interfered.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is read as under"
" 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of , an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused as committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may required, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1) then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
7. It is clear that power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage during the trial before conclusion of the trial. The trial Court can summon any person as accused and face the trial on going on case. Once the trial Court finds that there is evidence against such person, on the basis of which evidence, it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty for the offence. "The Evidence" herein means material provided before the Court during trial.
8. In the present case, the applicant has filed private complaint against Vikram Verma and present respondent-Satish Chandra Verma for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. Considering the material placed on record the Court of the view that prima-facie no case is made out against respondent No.2- Satish Chandra Verma and on that basis the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has refused to take cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC against him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order , a revision petition has been filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R. No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how and in what manner view taken by the trial court is plausible. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicant has preferred a petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018 before this Court, which is also dismissed by this Court today by affirming the order of the Courts' below.
9. In the case of S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary Patna, AIR 1983 (SC) 598, held that though a person against whom a complaint is filed alongwith some other person and who after an enquiry under Section 202 is not proceeded against by the Court, he can be summoned at a later stage under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to stand trial for the very same or connected offence or offences alongwith the other person against who process had been issued earlier by the Court. Even when an order of the Magistrate declining to issue process under Section 202 is confirmed by a higher court, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 319 remains unaffected if other conditions are satisfied.
10. In the case of S.C. Jain Vs. State of M.P., JLJ 76 this Court has held that the cognizance of the offence against any person under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. could be taken only after recording some evidence.
11. In the present case the applicant has not filed any statement of the witnesses recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First,Class, therefore, there is nothing on record on that basis the court can take cognizance against the respondent No.2- Satish Chandra Verma under the provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and implead him as an accused in the aforesaid crime. Hence, the Courts' below have not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Taking this view of the matter this Court is of the view that interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x (Piyush Vs. Vikram & Ors.) Applicant is present in person.
Heard.
ORDER ( 05 /10/2018 ) This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed the applicant/complainant for assailing the order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. 151/2017, whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, vide order dated 15/12/2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 9838178/2016 refused to take cognizance against the respondent No.2-Satishchandra Verma for the offence under Sections 120, 409 and 420 of the IPC on the private complaint filed by the applicant has been affirmed.
2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present petition are that the applicant filed the private complaint against the respondents for commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on 14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and the respondent No.1 after retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the aforesaid necklace. On the next day when applicant went to the jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his necklace then respondent No.1 informed informed him that he has given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost the same and he assured him that after making the same weighted gold necklace, he will provide him, however, he has not return the aforesaid necklace and by doing this respondents have committed criminal breach of trust. The applicant/complainant went to the police for lodging the FIR against the respondents but as they are influential persons that is why the police refused to take any action against the respondents, therefore, he was forced to file private complaint against the respondents before the Court.
3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore for taking cognizance against the respondents. After recording the statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process against the respondent No.1 only upon finding the prima-facie case against him for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the order of refusing to take cognizance against the respondent No.2, a revision petition has been filed by the respondent before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R. No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how and in what manner view taken by the trial court is not plausible. No perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. The aforesaid order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
4. Applicant contended that there is prima-facie material available on record to made out offence under Sections 406 of the IPC against respondent No.2-Satishchandra Verma and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed error in refusing to take cognizance against respondent No.2. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is the proprietor of Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop and he was also present at the shop when the applicant/complainant handed over the necklace to the respondent No.1. He further submitted that although respondent No.2- Satishchandra Verma lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel at Police-Station-Sarafa for misappropriation of the necklace, however, he has collusion with Vijay Singh Chandel received Rs.50,000/- from Geeta Chandel-sister of the Vijay Singh Chandel as a value of the necklace, which has been intruested to him, which clearly indicates that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is also involved in the alleged offence. Inspite of that the Courts' below have committed error in refusing to take cognizance against the respondent No.2. Therefore, he prayed for the quashment of the orders passed by the Courts' below.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and persused the record.
6. The statement of the complaint and his wife recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are specific allegations have been levelled against the respondent No.2 that he was also intrusted with necklace, however, no such averments have been made in the complaint filed by the applicant. In the aforesaid complaint the only allegation is made against respondent No.1-Vikram Verma that he has received the necklace for repairing work. From the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that the applicant has exaggerated his statement with intend to implicate respondent No.2 in the afaoresaid offence. It is also pertinent to note here that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is the person, who has lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel for misappropriation of the necklace of the applicant and on that basis the police registered an FIR for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC against him. The applicant has not filed any document before the trial Court that respondent No.2 received any amount from Vijay Singh Chandel, in lieu of the necklace, which has been lost by him. Taking this view of the matter this Court is of the view that the Courts' below have not committed any error in refusing to take cognizance against respondent No.2. The applicant has challenged by order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore before the revisional Court, however, aforesaid revision petition has been dismissed. The revisional Court has rightly held that respondent No.2 is not made a party in the revision petition, therefore, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, the Court cannot take any adverse action against him.
7. Having carefully considered the material brought on record, it is clear that interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH INDORE M.Cr.C. No. 6201/2018x (Vikram Verma Vs. Piyush) Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Respondent present in person.
Heard.
ORDER (05 /10/2018) This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. 346/2017, whereby order dated 15/12/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 9838178/2016 for taking the cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent has been affirmed.
2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present petition are that the respondent filed the private complaint against the applicant for commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on 14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. complainant/respondent came to the Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop of the applicant and he handed over one antique gold necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and the applicant retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the complainant went to the jwellery shop of the applicant for taking his necklace then applicant informed him that he has given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost the same and he assured him that after making the same weighted gold necklace, he will provide him. Later on he has not return the aforesaid necklace and by doing this he has committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant went to the police for lodging the FIR against the applicant but as applicant is influential person that is why the police refused to take any action against the applicant, therefore, he was forced to file private complaint against the applicant before the Court.
3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore for taking cognizance against the applicant. After recording the statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process against the applicant upon finding the prima-facie case against him for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, a revision petition has been filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R. No. 346/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the ground that looking to the material available on record the trial Court has not committed any mistake in taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. The aforesaid order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore has committed an error in taking cognizance against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. The courts' below have ignored the fact that regarding the same incident FIR was registered at Police-Station Sarafa bearing Crime No. 77/2015 under Section 406 of the IPC against Vijay Singh Chandel, the person who was intrusted with necklace and he misappropriated it. In the aforesaid criminal case the applicant is the witness and police has also recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, for the same incident, he cannot be prosecuted. From the averment of the complaint and statement of the complainant and his witnesses recroded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., does not indicate regarding involvement of the applicant in the present crime. The entire proceedings are misuse of process of law, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.
5. On the other hand respondent contended that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore has not committed any error of law in taking cognizance against the applicant as there exist prima-facie case against him. The impugned orders does not suffer from any perversity, therefore, no interference is called for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and persused the record.
7. The averments of the complaint and the statement of the complainant and his wife recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant for commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC. There is sufficient material available on record for taking the cognizance against applicant. The complainant handed over one gold necklace weighted 66 gms. to the applicant for the purpose of repairing and the same was retained by him by issuing acknowledgment. When the complainant came to take his necklace then applicant informed him that the aforesaid necklace was sent to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing work but he has lost it. Father of the applicant- Satish Verma lodged the report against Vijay Singh Chandel, however, aforesaid necklace has not been recovered. The applicant is the person, who actually received the necklace and it is alleged that he has handed over it to Vijay Singh Chandel, but the applicant is not made accused in the case registered at Police-Station-Sarafa, therefore, he cannot take plea that he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence, which has already been registered by the police.
8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and Ors, 2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of the High Court that the averments made in the complaint are imaginary is not based on any material. Even assuming that the complainant had a score to settle against the accused, the same by itself may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that at least a prima-facie case has been establish in view of the evidence on record. The entire proceedings are misuse of process of law, therefore, the present proceedings deserve to be quashed.
9. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, has cautioned the High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC in the following manner :-
"22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/ complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, andsecure the ends of justice."
10. Having carefully considered the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) and material brought on record, it is clear that interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted, however, the detail discussion on the material furnished by the applicant will prejudice his defence before the trial Court. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No. 727/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC for transferring the MJC No. 290/2013 (Deepak Vs. Jyoti) from the Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
2. In the present case the respondent has moved an application under Section 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from the applicant, which is pending for the consideration of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case is pending since 2013 and the applicant has attending the Court regularly but due to physical problem it is rather difficult for her to come to Indore on every date of hearing, therefore, he prayed for transfer of MJC No. 290/2013 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal to Indore. The applicant is not required to attend every date of hearing and she can very well represented by her counsel. Under these circumstances, at this stage no sufficient ground is made out to transfer the MJC No. 290/2013 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 290/2013 as early as possible.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 37403/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated 05/09/2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had preferred a Criminal Revision No.4274/2018 before this Court challenging the order of framing of charges for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC alongwith Section 3/4 of the Protection of Debotrs Act, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated05/09/2018. But due to typographical error in the order passed by this Court Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act could not be mentioned, therefore, he prayed for modification in the impugned order.
Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 05/09/2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018 is modified as under:
"12. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and charge with regard to the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Debtors Act against the applicant-Santosh is hereby quashed. "
This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 05/09/2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No.4274/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18348/2017 Indore dated :09/10/2018 Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /10/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for transferring the MJC No. 200/2014 (Jyoti Vs. Deepak) from the Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case is pending since 2014 and the applicant has attending the Court regularly but in pursuance of some medical complications and medical advise, it is difficult for the applicant to mark her presence in each and every date before the Family Court, Indore, therefore, he prayed for transfer of MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application contending that the case is pending since 2014 and now it has reached at the stage of evidence, however, the applicant is dragging the proceedings, therefore, he prayed that no sufficient ground is available to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal to Indore. The case is listed for taking evidence of the parties and the applicant herself is not adducing any evidence and the applicant is not required to attend every date of hearing and she can very well represented by her counsel. Under these circumstances, at this stage no sufficient ground is made out to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.
6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 200/2014 as early as possible.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12945/2018x (Ravindra & Ors. Vs. Hemlata & Ors.) Indore dated :01/10/2018 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard.
The applicants have preferred this petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 230/2017, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 12, 17 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the PWDV Act').
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants accepted that appeal is provided under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, hence she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If the applicants are preferred an appeal before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith application for condonation of delay, then same shall be considered liberally.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8284/2017x (State of M.P. vs. Ali Hussain) Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard.
ORDER The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 28/02/2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in S.T. No. 17/2016, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354(a)(i)
(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Secual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23/10/2015 at about 4:00 p.m., the victim was alone in her house, the respondent came to her house and asked for water when she refused to give him water then respondent entered into her house and caught hold her hand with intend to outrage her modesty, when she shouted then respondent fled away from the spot. The matter has been reported to Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain, on which basis police registered FIR bearing Crime No. 635/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354(a)(i)(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Secual Offences Act, 2012. During investigation statement of the witnesses have been record and respondent has been arrested and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
3. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence available on record by impugned judgment held that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the victim and it has also come that in the morning of the date of alleged incident a quarrel has taken place between the family members of the victim and the respondent, therefore, the story of the prosecution appears to be suspicious. Thus, prosecution has failed to establish charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the charges levelled against him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant/State has preferred this petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to against impugned judgment.
4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the victim is found to be a minor girl and the respondent after entered into her house caught hold her hand with intent to molest her. Under these circumstances the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal against impugned judgment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, I am of the view that the learned trial Court after considering the material discrepancies in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. has come to the conclusion that her statement are not reliable.
Independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story and it has also come on record that in the morning of the date of incident there was a quarrel taken place between the respondent and family members of the victim, under these circumstances an opportunity of false implication of the respondent cannot be rulled out, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the applicant. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper and it does not appear to be perversed.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting admission. Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4415/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri I.U. Quazi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Bharati Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6681/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months S.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas, vide order dated 23/02/2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 4143/2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, they have challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 100124/2016, which was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas by order dated 16/08/2018 by affirming the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments applicants have preferred this Revision Petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. It is further submitted that provision of Section 13(2) of the Act is not complied with. The report of the Public Analyst does not clarified that what were the contents under lay in the sample, due to which it was found to be adulterated. As per CFSL report only misbranding was detected and no defect was found in the quality of the sample, however the applicants are not the manufacturer of the product. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has committed an error in not giving the benefit of protection under Section 19(2) of the Act to the applicants. It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that the sample which has been taken by the Food Inspector found to be adulterated. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given to the applicants and thereafter, the applicants apply for sending the aforesaid sample to CFSL . As per the CFSL report the product was found to be mis-branded, therefore, the trial Court convicted the applicants for the aforesaid offence and their conviction has been affirmed by the appellate Court. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material available on record found the charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He further submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding reappreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, IA No. 6681/2018 is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17038/2018 (Jamila Bi vs. Lakhan & Ors.) Indore dated :04/10/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
ORDER ( 04 /10/2018) The applicant has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 16/03/2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Cr.A. Nos. 120/2017, 125/2017 and 126/2017, whereby learned appellate Court set aside the judgment dated 19/07/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar passed in Criminal Case No. 403762/2011 and acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from the charge for offence punishable under Sections 325/149 and 147 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08/10/2011, the applicant/complainant lodged a FIR against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging that they have hurled filthy languages and assaulted her with stick and fists, due to which she sustained injuries. On the basis of aforesaid report offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 323/149 and 506 of the IPC was registered against respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The applicant/complainant was sent to the medical examination and in the X-ray report a fracture was detected, hence police added for offence under Section 325 of the IPC against the respondents. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar.
3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence available on record convicted the respondents for the offence under Sections 325/149 and 147 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each offence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction respondents have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the respondents were acquitted from the aforesaid charges, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court in para Nos. 13,14,15, 16 and 18 of its judgment, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out that how and in what manner the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgment.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting admission.
Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.770/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
As per the communication dated 09/12/2017, received from Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore he has not directed the police-station-Banganga, Indore for recalling of the bailable warrant issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu S/o Moolchandra Chouhan.] Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore has also clarified that the jail sentence of the appellant-Sonu was suspended by him till 02/05/2017, however, no order of suspension of his jail sentence was received upto 02/05/2017. The appellant Raju was also not appeared on the aforesaid dates, therefore, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against appellant-Sonu so that he may be sent to the custody for serving the jail sentence but the aforesaid warrant could not be executed. On 01/08/2017, appellant-Sonu appeared before the Court alongwith his counsel and he has produced the copy of the order dated 02/05/2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 770/2017, by which his jail sentence was suspended. His counsel informed that the High Court fixed the date 12/09/2017 for appearance of the appellant-Sonu, hence, in compliance of the aforesaid order, he accepted the bail bonds executed by the appellant and thereafter, he has directed the Police Station Banganga, Indore for recalling non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant by him. He has not directed the police-station Banganga for recalling the bailable warrant issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu.
Looking to the aforesaid explanation given by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, no further action is required.
Meanwhile, non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Sonu for securing his presence before this Court on 29/10/2018.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.839/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 1770/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Manohar S.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19376/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an indigent person and on the date of pronouncement of judgment, he was sent to jail for serving out remaining part of his jail sentence, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of delay.
Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.19376/2017 is allowed and delay of 25 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court be called for. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4881/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5896/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 on admission as well as on IA No. 5146/2017, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6420/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7788/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during pendency of this petition final order has already been passed by the Family Court, Indore, therefore, this petition has become rendered infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8573/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10263/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 8665/2017, an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17605/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 19327/2017, an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21076/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 15 days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22693/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the Office within two weeks.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23211/2017x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1811/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1938/2018x Indore dated : 01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 07/10/2017 passed by the Special Judge in Special S.t. No. 68/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation respectively.
The present appeal has been barred by 86 days and the appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the present appeal, however, he has not file affidavit in support of this application. Appellant has granted sufficient opportunities to file the same but he has not complied with the orders passed by this Court.
Today none appeared on behalf of the appellant and on earlier occasions i.e. 24/07/2018, 27/04/2018, 10/04/2018 and 19/03/2018 also none appeared on behalf of the appellant, which indicates that the appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 4487/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 7011/2018, an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 4551/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 7010/2018, an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4571/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Darshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7 days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office .
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 4583/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Tushar Bhedasgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants. On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 6892/2018, an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5177/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5659/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 587/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 6251/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 6319/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 7 days time to cure the dfects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 6381/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 31126/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 35743/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36617/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7 days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36795/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 37321/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1485/2012x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Today the case is listed for default of appearance of appellant- Amar Singh. The applicant could not appear before this Court on 13/03/2018.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is listed for today for non-appearance of appellant-Amar Singh inspite of that appellant is not present today, therefore, IA No. 1805/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant- Amar Singh is hereby dismissed.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant
-Amar Singh for securing his presence before this Court.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.536/2013 Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant No.1- Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court on 28/08/2018, however, even after the service of the said warrant he has not appeared before this Court on 28/08/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant No.1-Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.596/2015x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Applicant No.1-Yogesh is not present today. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.1 - Yogesh before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 22/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.64/2016x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. None for the respondents.
As per Office report service report of bailable warrant issued against respondent No.2-Rakesh is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the week commencing 29/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.287/2016x Indore dated :01/10/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. As per Office report service report of non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Vikas is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.473/2016x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. As per Office report appellant-Ravi has failed to mark his presence before this Court on 05/07/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ravi for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.
List on 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.520/2016x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks time to pay the process fee.
On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to the respondent by ordinary as well as by registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
In default of payment of process fee within 7 working days, this appeal shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1008/2016x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan has return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given address and he has gone to Ajmer in search of employment.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan to secure his presence before this Court.
Superintendent of Police, Ratlam is directed to furnish the quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Monu @ Mohan.
Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the appellant-Monu @ Mohan is not received.
Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Monu @ Mohan.
List on 01/02/2019.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.302/2014x (Jahid Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:01/10/2018 Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5231/2018, which is repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Jahid.
Appellant - Jahid has been found guilty for offence under Section 8/15(C) of the NDPS Act and and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo additional one year of R.I. After hearing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that earlier application of the appellant was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 02/04/2018 and thereafter, no change of circumstance is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Accordingly, IA No. 5231/2018 is hereby dismissed. List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38320/2018x (Navbheet Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 11/2016, Police Station- Crime Branch, Indore District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/120-B of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 39236/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 39287/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Ms. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 39296/2018x Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.39300/2018x (Jitendra Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :01/10/2018 Shri Akash Rathi. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 297/2018, Police Station- Boda, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Section 376 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.7325/2018x (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:29/09/2018 Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7067/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Manish.
Appellant - Manish has been found guilty for offence under Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, he has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court since 10/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Manish.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7067/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Manish in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4622/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 939/2001x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue on IA No. 5673/2018, an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuance of passport.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1384/2015x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file appropriate application to substitute the service of notice on respondent No.2.
List in the week commencing 08/10/2018. IR to continue till next date of hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 118/2016x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 1584/2016x Indore dated :29/09/2018 None for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2.
Today none appeared on behalf of the applicants and o n earlier occasions on 11/12/2017 and 29/08/2017 also none appeared on behalf of the applicants, which clearly indicates that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.12257/2016x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has already supplied the copy petition alongwith annexures to the respondent No.2.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.661/2017x Indore dated :29/09/2018 None for the parties.
Adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.709/2017x Indore dated :29/09/2018 None for the parties.
Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9563/2017x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
None for the respondents, though served. Heard on IA No. 8213/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing this petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit of K.K. Sharma, DSP Head Quarter Dewas, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 8213/2017 is allowed and delay of 44 days in filing this petition is hereby condoned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25613/2017x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.
Respondent has been acquitted by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, vide order dated 31/08/2017 passed in ST No. 23/2017 from the charges for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366(A) and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section 3(A)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is punishable with life imprisonment, therefore, it should be heard by the Division Bench.
Office is directed to examine and list before appropriate Bench.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.194/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matteer on the ground that Senior counsel is not available today to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 09/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3540/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of appeal.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing. List in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4146/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 None for the parties.
Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35734/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35067/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to argue the matter regarding question of mainability.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34215/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks time to comply with order dated 07/09/2018.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3269/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3426/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for and is granted two weeks time to file copy of the proceedings of the trial Court.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3433/2018x Indore dated :29/09/2018 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.788/2016X Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri V.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Heard.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19067/2018X Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for relexation of the condition imposed by this Court, vide order datd 14/11/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 20777/2017, by which they have been released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report from the concerned police-station that the applicants complied with the direction made by this Court, vide order dated 14/11/2017 in M.Cr.C. No. 20777/2017, by which they were directed to mark their presence in the concerned police-station on every first sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. To 12:00 noon.
List after one week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22569/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the applicant.
Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23172/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the applicant.
Adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24411/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24414/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24474/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26164/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26287/2018x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List after one week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6635/2015x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the applicant.
Today none appeared on behalf of the applicant and o n earlier occasions on 17/08/2017,01/05/2017, 24/03/2017 and 13/01/2017 also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which clearly indicates that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.6693/2016x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.6817/2016x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the applicant/State. Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. 8417/2016x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after eight weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. 639/2017 Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, even after the service of notice. Let record of the Family Court be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. 4119/2017x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties are involving in compromise discussion, hence, he prays for time to argue the matter.
By way of last indulgence time is granted. List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. 3157/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 6326/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the parties.
Adjoured.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. 6772/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6888/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 34 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is illetrate and person and he is not having any knowledge regarding limitation, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of delay.
Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 6888/2018 is allowed and delay of 34 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court be called for. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.880/2010x Indore dated :28/09/2018 None for the appellant .
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per Office report appellant-Ranu has failed to mark his presence before this Court on 18/06/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ranu for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.
List on 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.814/2011x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant/State. Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. From the perusal of the record it appears that IA No. 5092/2018 has already been decided by this Court, vide order dated 27/07/2018.
Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1111/2011x Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2- Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh is detained in Central Jail-Bherugarh, Ujjain in another case.
Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.2- Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh for securing his presence before this Court on 23/10/2018.
List 23/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38206/2018x (Shyam Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.3/2018, Police Station-Badwah, District-Khargone, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 344,376, 376(2)(n) and 328 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3 /4 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38204/2018x (Bhure Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.259/2018, Police Station- Gandhwani, District-Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38180/2018x ( Chinu @ Vijendra Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :28/09/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.608/2017, Police Station- Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 307, 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after receiving the balastic expert report.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3303/2018x Indore dated :18/07/2018 Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondenty prays for and is granted a weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.
List after a week.
(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36827/2018x (Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Pankaj C. Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the order dated 18/05/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal Revision No. 10/2018, whereby order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 rejecting the application filed by the applicants under Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( in short "the Act") has been upheld.
5. It is not disputed that on 10/07/2012 the Food Safety Officer visited the premises of respondent No.2 and had taken sample of product "PANVILAS" pan masala (packed). Thereafter, the same was sent to the Food Safety Analyst and by report of Food Safety Analyst dated 26/07/2012 the sample was declared to be sub-standard. On 07/12/2013, the Designated Officer/Deputy Director of Food and Drug Administration, Jhabua after verifying the entire documents granted sanction of prosecution against the applicant and lastly on 25/11/2014 a complaint was filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua, whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter the applicants appeared before the Court concerned and submitted an application under Section 77 of the Act. The complaint is filed after delay of more than 1 year and therefore, it was barred by limitation and complaint should have been dismissed and no cognizance could have been taken on the same, looking to the provisions of Section 77 of the Act the aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial Court presuming that the order of sanction was granted exercising powers under Section 30(2)(e) of the Act is an order for granting extention of limitation under Section 77 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the applicants have filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Jhabua, which was also dismissed on the ground that contention of the applicants regarding bar of Section 77 of the Act can be taken up in defence by them. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders the applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the record.
5. Provisions of Section 77 of the Act provides as under:-
" Section 77. Time limit for prosecutions:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of comission of an offence:
Provived that the Commissioner of Food Safety may, for reasons to be recorded in writing approve prosecution within an extended period up to three years."
6. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that time limit for prosecution under the Act is only one year from the date of commission of the offence and not from the date of sanction of prosecution. All the requisite formalities are required to be completed within 1 years from the date of comission of the offence so that the accused may not be adversely affected. Admittedly in the present case complaint has filed on 25/11/2014, which is near by 2 years and 4 months from the date of the commission of the offence. Section 77 of the Act, 2006 clearly provides that the extention of the limitation can only be granted by a separate and specific order by assigning the reasons in writing for the extention of limitation. The powers vested in the Commissioner under Section 30(3) and Section 77 are entirely different. Section 30 of the Act provides as under:-
"30. Commissioner of Food Safety of the State:-
(1) The State Government shall appoint the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. (2) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-
(a) Prohibit in the interest of public health, the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of any article of food, either in the whole of the State or any area or part thereof for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the order notified in this behalf in the Official Gazzete;
(b) Carry out survey of the industrial units engaged in the manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out compliance by such units of the standards notified by the Food Authority for various articles of food;
(c) Conduct or organise training programmes for the personnel of the office of the Commissioner of Food Safety and, on a wider scale, for different segments of food chain for generating awareness on food safety;
(d) Ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the standards and other requirements as specified and also ensure a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability, transparency and credibility;
(e) Sanction prosecution for offences punishable with imprisonment under this Act;
(f) Such other functions as the State Government may, in consultation with the Food Authority , prescribe. (3) The Commissioner of Food Safety may, by order, delegate, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order, such of his powers and functions under this Act (except the power to appoint designated officer, Food Safety officer and food analyst) as he may deem necessary or expedient to any officer subordinate to him."
Thus an order of sanction for prosecution without a whisper of Section 77 or limitation cannot be presumed to be an order under Section 77 of the Act. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has wrongly construed the powers delegated under Section 30(3) for grant of Sanction under Section 30(2)(e) of the Act as delegation of power vested in Commisioner by virtue of Section 77 of the Act because the sanction under Section 30(2)
(e) is with regard to prosecution for offences punishable with imprisonment under the Act, whereas under Section 77 of the Act, the Commissioner alone is entitled to grant extension of limitation for reasons to be recorded in writing under Section 77 of the Act, therefore, learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the complaint because the Commissioner of Food Safety has not exercised the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of Section 77 of the Act.
8. Resultantly, in view whereof I find merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. Consequently the order dated 18/05/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal Revision No. 10/2018 and order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby set aside, by which the application filed by the applicants under Section 77 of the Act has been rejected and all the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby quashed.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1226/2013x (Karan Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/11/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Cri.Appeal No.505/2011, confirming the judgment dated 24/11/2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, District- Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 757/2010, by which the applicant No.1- Karan Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under Section 324 of the IPC; whereas applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under Section 324/34 of the IPC with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16/10/2010, at about 11:00 p.m., when the complainant was returning after taking the darshan of Chamdada Mata temple towards his home alongwith Dilip Singh and Rajendra Singh, while they were passing infront of the house of Lakhan Singh then Lakhan Singh caught hold him and started abusing him, thereafter, Karansingh gave a blow from the back side of farsi on the head of the complainant, due to which blood was oozing from his head. Dilip and Rajendra saved him. After the incident, complainant-Bane Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station- Agar and on that basis case was registered against the applicant No.1-Karan Singh for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC . On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Agar, District-Shajapur.After framing the charge and recording the evidence, the offences under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the IPC were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is further submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes and they have entered into compromise. In this regard IA No. 8048/2017, an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compromise has been filed by them, which is duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have remained in jail for a period of approximately 1 & 1/2 months and they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicants guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of complainant-Bane Singh (PW 1), Rajendra Singh (PW 2) and Dr. Shashank Saxena (PW 3). Hence, considering the material available on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicants under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC respectively.
6. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation coupled with the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and the applicants have already remained approximately 1 & 1/2 months in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.2000/-for the offence under Section 324 and 324/34 of the IPC respectively, within a period of thirty days. Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and fifteen days RI respectively under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC.
With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.
(S.K.Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1440/2016x Indore dated :27/09/2018 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report the applicant-Kalu @ Vishal is not appeared before the Registry of this Court on 09/04/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant-Kalu @ Vishal for securing his presence before this Court on 14/11/2018.
List on 14/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 705/2014x Indore dated :27/09/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 35443/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed the applicant for extension of time to deposit the fine amount as directed in Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 vide order dated 06/11/2012.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has filed a Criminal Revision before this Court against the judgment dated 08/05/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2012, whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced for a period of 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.600/- for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC.
3. Aforesaid revision petition was finally decided by this Court, vide order dated 06/11/2012 in National Lok Adalat and by that order the conviction of the applicant was maintained, however, the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.3500/-. It was further directed that, enhanced amount be deposited within a period of two months else applicant has to undergo remaining period of sentence. However, the applicant was not aware about the aforesaid order, therefore, he could not deposit the enhanced fine amount within stipulated period and the period of two months from 06/11/2012 has expired long back and if the applicant will go and try to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, then same should not be accepted by the trial Court. Now the applicant is ready to comply the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 06/11/2012. Hence, the order dated 06/11/2012 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 should be modified and the applicant is further granted 2 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of fine.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Looking to the reasons mentioned in the application, this petition is hereby allowed and the applicant is further granted 20 days time to deposit the enhanced amount of fine before the concerned trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.783/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Ms. V. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 2518/2018, an application for deleting the name of appellant No.2-Sadaji from the cause title of the memo of appeal.
From the perusal of record it appears that learned counsel for the appellants has filed the photocopy of death certificate of appellate No.2- Sadaji and according to this appellant No.2-Sadaji has died on 2/10/2017.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verified the factum of death of appellant No.2-Sadaji and submit its report, thereafter IA No. 2518/2018 will be considered.
List on 26/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.958/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant No.3-Gyan Singh is not present today. Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.3 - Gyan Singh before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 26/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1057/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No2. - Salman before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 23/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1285/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant- Bunty S/o Ambaram Chauhan is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.22744/2017, an application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 06/11/2017 before the registry of this Court .
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to death in his family, the applicant could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 06/11/2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non-appearance of applicant-Bunty on 06/11/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.22744/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of applicant- Bunty before this Court on 06/11/2017 is hereby condoned.
Applicant- Bunty is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 17/04/2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1497/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Today the matter is listed for default of appellant-Santosh @ Ariyabeli. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- Santosh @ Ariyabeli for securing his presence before this Court on 12/11/2018.
List on 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1544/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri M.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna received unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail, Indore from 25/05/2017.
Let production warrant be issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna for securing his presence before this Court on 30/10/2018.
List on 30/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1146/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA No. 7033/2018, an application for condonation of delay in payment of process fee.
On due consideration, IA No. 7033/2018 is allowed. On payment of fresh process-fee within seven working days, let notice be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within 3 weeks.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 32077/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the certified copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 493/2018.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 3700/2017x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the present revision, the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled all their disputes amicably and no point of difference exists between them, therefore, the appellants does not wish to press this revision petition, hence he prayed for withdrawal of the revision petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14583/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 None for the applicant, even in second round. Case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 634/2015x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has filed the death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh on 24/10/2017, however, it is not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and placed it on record. Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22313/2017x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that learned counsel for the applicant has not supplied the copy of IA No. 6419/2018 to him.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant gives undertaking that he has supplied the copy of IA No. 6419/2018 to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 during the course of the day.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 3843/2018x (Pappu SinghVs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 26/09/2018 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) has been filed by the appellant for apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 8/2017 registered at Police-Station- Industrial Area, District-Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 366 and 344/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3(1)(w)(1) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 37228/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36309/2018x (Pinky @ Pratibha Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 26/09/2018 Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by which applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 198/2018 registered at Police-Station-Udainagar District-Dewas, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 323 and 120-B of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.7094/2018x (Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 126/2012, Police Station-Tal, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 406, 294 and 506 of the IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36981/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file necessary documents.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 37266/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Shri Rahul Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted one weeks time to file appropriate application.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 24466/2018x Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 . Notice be made returnable within two weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34626/2018x ( Balu Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :26/09/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2018, Police Station- Suwasra, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 1 year of jail sentence of the applicant.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37760/2018x ( Mohammad Vakil Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Raju Pandagre, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.184/2018, Police Station-Jaora, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 302, 147, 148,149 and 294 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37753/2018x ( Manoj Parihar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :25/09/2018 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.293/2018, Police Station-Bherugarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 307, 323 and 294 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the injured-Reena Parihar before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6987/2018x (Shambhu Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:25/09/2018 Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6839/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Shambhu.
Appellant - Shambhu has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Shambhu.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6839/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Shambhu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36345/2018x ( Jatin Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2018, Police Station-Palasia, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 302/34 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the certified copy of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial Court.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6910/2018x (Sagar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 442/2018, Police Station-Banganga, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 368, 376(2)(i)(n) and 109 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36416/2018x ( Ramesh Nath @ Rajesh Guru Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.26/2018, Police Station- Station Road, Ratlam District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4236/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 37838/2018x (Nafisha Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 25/09/2018 Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 284/2018 registered at Police-Station-Mandleshwar District-Khargone, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 37853/2018x (Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 25/09/2018 Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 293/2017 registered at Police-Station-Nowgaon District-Dhar, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.38099/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file some relevant documents.
Be listed after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34324/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a weeks time to comply with direction given by this Court, vide order dated 17/09/2018.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 7192/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 7207/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 7212/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6522/2018x Indore dated :25/09/2018 Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing alongwith compliance report under Section 15(A)(3) of SC/ST(Act), failing which the concerned SHO shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary and report.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Indore dated :18/09/2018 None for the parties.
Due to call made by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates are abstainging from Court work.
In absnece of the parteis, the case is adjourned. List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Praveen THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3225/2018x (Deepak Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:31/05/2018 Shri S.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3674/2018 and 3673/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3674/2018 and 3673/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2835/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Deepak.
Appellant - Deepak has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Deepak.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2835/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Deepak in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3222/2018x (Abdul Rasid @ Lula Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:31/05/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 4145/2018 and 4146/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 4145/2018 and 4146/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2934/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula.
Appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula has been found guilty for offence under Section 384 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2934/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.607/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2012/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 3760/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant- Shyaam.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2032/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2050/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri G.S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2058/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2122/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2312/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2845/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks time to argue on IA No. 3784/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Mohd. Shakir @ Bhuru.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18473/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20536/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. Nos. 3847/2018 & 3846/2018 which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3847/2018 and 3846/2018 are allowed.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 3913/2018, an application for grant of stay by ordinary as well as by registered-AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.174/2016x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3692/2018 & 3693/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3692/2018 and 3693/2018 are allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks ttime to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4147/2017x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3688/2018 & 3689/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3688/2018 and 3689/2018 are allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 3687/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant-Pankesh @ Pankaj.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4920/2017x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3719/2018 & 3720/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3719/2018 and 3720/2018 are allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 3721/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant-Ayyub.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.439/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3646/2018 & 3647/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3646/2018 and 3647/2018 are allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 3324/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant-Gopal.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1272/2015x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5781/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant-Anwar.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA No. 5781/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 5781/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3965/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3701/2018 & 3702/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3701/2018 and 3702/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3848/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Tushar Bhedsagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3897/2018 & 3898/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3897/2018 and 3898/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2383/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2367/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3655/2018 & 3656/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3655/2018 and 3656/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2163/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3743/2018 & 3744/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3743/2018 and 3744/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1969/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3667/2018 & 3666/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3667/2018 and 3666/2018 are allowed.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week commencing 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1193/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3602/2018 & 3603/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3602/2018 and 3603/2018 are allowed.
Report of the Probation Officer is not available. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1458/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3598/2018 & 3597/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3598/2018 and 3597/2018 are allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1981/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri K.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3567/2018 & 3568/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3567/2018 and 3568/2018 are allowed.
Report of the Probation Officer is not available. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2401/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri P.K. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3765/2018 & 3764/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3765/2018 and 3764/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 2432/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri M.I. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3672/2018 & 3671/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3672/2018 and 3671/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 2439/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3733/2018 & 3732/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3733/2018 and 3732/2018 are allowed.
Let record of the courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1803/2018x Indore dated :31/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3578/2018 & 3579/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3578/2018 and 3579/2018 are allowed.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week commending 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 28080/2017 Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 2211/2016 Indore dated :15/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh and Shri Neeraj Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Anurag Chandra Goel, learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4013/2018x (Monu Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3894/2018 & 3895/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3894/2018 and 3895/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3893/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Monu.
Appellant -Monu has been found guilty for offence under Section 394 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court till 26/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3893/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Monu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4002/2018x (Ritesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 Shri Pankaj Gadwanshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3833/2018 & 3834/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3833/2018 and 3834/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3832/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Ritesh.
Appellant -Ritesh has been found guilty for offence under Section 394/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court till 24/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Ritesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3821/2018x (Gokul & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3679/2018 & 3680/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3679/2018 and 3680/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3385/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants -Gokul and Rajendra.
Appellants -Gokul and Rajendra have been found guilty for offence under Sections 325/34, 323/34, 325, 326 and 326/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months, 2 months, 2 years, 3 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3385/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3906/2018x (Gopal Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3695/2018 & 3694/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3695/2018 and 3694/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3473/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Gopal Singh.
Appellant -Gopal Singh has been found guilty for offence under Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3473/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Gopal Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3950/2018x (Govardhan Kushwah & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3564/2018 3562/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing during summer vacation respectively.
On due consideration IA Nos. 3564/2018 and 3562/2018 are allowed.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3559/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants - Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu.
Appellants -Govardhan and Balli @ Babli have been found guilty for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3559/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19709/2018x ( Darshana Kour & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 25/2018, Police Station-Singoli, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19337/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vcacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18990/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to file the hindi translation of the relevant documents filed alongwith the challan.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vcacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18887/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted 3 days time to file relevant document.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vcacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18860/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively .
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20489/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Syed Z.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively alongwith relevant papers regarding the present applicant.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20506/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20514/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20524/2018x ( Umrao Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 184/2018, Police Station- Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 354, 452 and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20527/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Devdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 19359/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 20530/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20531/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri R.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 20552/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9445/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 7026/2018x Indore dated :28/05/2018 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Vacation Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1179/2007 Indore dated :05/05/2018 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 584/2017 Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 3865/2017 Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /05/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17771/2018 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /05/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.11128/2018 (PIL)x (Balram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Pramod Mitha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard.
The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for praying the follwing reliefs:-
1. The process of organ donation should be done in accordance with the rules and regulations.
2. Instructors and NGOs working for the organ donation should be instructed to work with doctor's report.
3. All provisions should be followed to prvent other patients from such negligence in future.
4. The proper justice should be given for welfare of public and no one should face this kind of problem in the future.
The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Indore (M.P.). He claims to be Social Worker and has no personal interest in the subject matter of the petition.
The petitioner has submitted that on 10/4/2018, Sachin S/o Prakashbad Gujar was admitted in Bombay Hospital, Indore due to brain injury sustained in a road accident. In the Bombay Hospital Doctors have not given him proper treatment and illegally contacted Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore for organ donation, when the family members of the Sachin refused to donate the organs and claims that injured person is alive and they are not interested in donating the organs of their son, then Docotrs of Bombay Hospital got irritated and shifted the patient to M.Y. Hospital, Indore without giving any discharge papers and proper transportation treatment. It is further submitted that Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore again came to the M.Y. Hospital and insisted the family members of the injured Sachin to donate the organs saying that Sachin is brain dead; wheras according to the Doctors, Sachin is not brain dead and he is recovering. Then the family members of the Sachin had made a written complaint against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, alleging that they are unnecessarily presurasing them for organ donation. As per the Doctors and Experts, the desire of the family members is the final decision, a committee has been created in all the Hospitals for counseling of organ donation. But in the present case without counselling for the organ donation, agents of Muskan Group created pressure on the family members of the Sachin to donate his organs, which shows that there is collussion between the organ donation society and Bombay Hospital, therefore, the act of the respondents are illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, he filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation on the basis of the photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the injured-Sachin against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani,who are the members of the Muskan Group, Indore and on the basis of news item published in Hindi Daily "Dainik Bhaskar", alleging that they are saying that their son Sachin is brain dead, therefore, they are insisted for organ donation. He also invited our attention in view of the aforesaid publication.
It becomes necessary to consider that the news item published in the newspaper itself is admissible in evidence ? It is well settled proposition of law that a report in a newspaper is only heresay evidence and no judicial notice can be taken of the facts stated in a news item in the nature of heresay secondonary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. In this regard we are referring the the deceision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty V. State of Tamil nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274, where the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under:-
" We cannot take itself judicial notice of the fact stated in a news item being in the nature of heresay evidence unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only heresay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2)of the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineneness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report can not be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely heresay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported."
In the present matter, although, the petitioner has filed the photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the injured-Sachin, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid complaint, we find that there is no allegation in the complaint that they donated the organ of the Sachin. As per the complaint there is only allegation against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani is that they are alleging that their son appears to be brain dead and they may be ready for donate his organ. No legal evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove this allegation made against the respondents and the views expressed by the experts published in the Hindi Daily 'Dainik Bhaskar', is only heresay evidence and no judicial notice can be taken of the facts stated in a news item in the nature of heresay secondonary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde.
In view of the aforesaid, We can not take any judicial notice of the facts stated in the petition. Accordingly, this Public Litigation Interest Peition is hereby dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13882/2018 (Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.276/2016, Police Station- Sendhwa Gramin, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 458, 397 and 395 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.435/2013x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 424/2013.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.424/2013x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply of IA No. 1348/2018, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant -Gokul.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.882/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after 6 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3326/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after 8 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3393/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3404/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 None for the parties.
In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after 10 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.646/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Alkesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that he will not claim the interim maintenance in pursuant to Court order dated 14/02/2018 till the next date of hearing.
Looking to the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent the case is listed for hearing on 27/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3543/2017x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file appropriate application to implead complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.182/2018x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, leabrned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal Revision into M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.572/2018x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal Revision into M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.880/2018x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee +9within 3 working days, let notice be issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 1281/2018, an application for stay by ordinary and registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1001/2018x Indore dated :18/05/2018 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1493/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Veera @ Veru.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1493/2018.
Pryaer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1493/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. List on the question of admission after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 912/2015 Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Applicant-Narayan is present in person. The applicant is suffering from paralysis and he is brought before this Court by his family members in sick condition. He is dully identified by his counsel and his presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3077/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant Narayan on 02/11/2017 before the registry of this Court and for recalling of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court on 09/04/2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant could not appear before the Registry of this Court on 02/11/2017 due to paralytic attack on the left side of his body.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application and the condition of the applicant-Naray, IA No.3077/20188 is allowed and previous non- appearance of applicant-Narayan before the Registry this Court on 02/11/2017 is hereby condoned and non-bailable warrant issued against him by this Court, vide order dated 09/04/2018 is hereby recalled.
Also heard on IA NO. 21309/2017, an application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for permanent exemption of applicant from marking his appearance before the Registry of this Court, in which it is contended that the applicant is suffering from paralytic attack on the left side of his body and he is unable to walk and he is completely bed ridden, therefore, he is not in a position to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on every date. Hence, the applicant seeks permanent exemption from marking his presence before the Registry of this Court. The application is also supported with CT-scan report and other medical papers.
Looking to the health condition of the applicant, IA No. 21309/2017 is allowed and the applicant is permanently exempted to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court with the condition that he shall mark his presence through his counsel on every date fixed by the Registry in that behalf. If his counsel has failed to mark his apperance before the Registry on the date fixed for his appearance then it shall be treated the applicant's absent on that date and the Court will issue warrant against the applicant for securing his presence before this Court. When the Court will direct then the applicant shall remain present in person before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court first on 31/10/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19616/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19782/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1458/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1457/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19635/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3219/2018x
( Mohanlal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :17/05/2018 Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with order dated 19/04/2018 rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Indore in bail application No. 1124/2018, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail has been declined.
Appellants have been apprehended their arrest in connection with Crime No. 153/2018, registered at Police-Station- Betma, District-Indore in relation to offence punishable under Sections 325, 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 .
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17794/2018x ( Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :17/05/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 99/2018, Police Station-Leema Chouhan, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12803/2018x Indore dated :17/05/2018 Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file some relevant documents.
List on 18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16287/2018x ( Azhar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :17/05/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 536/2016, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Shajapur, concerning offence under Sections 394 and 120(B) of the IPC.
After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18888/2018x Indore dated :17/05/2018 Shri M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.577/2017 x (Mayur Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:07/05/2018 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6980/2017- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence dated 20/03/2013 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Indore in Special S.T. No. 18/2010 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in the present crime. The appellant is in custody since 12/04/2010. He has already been completed more than 8 years of his jail sentence and there is no likelihood of the final hearing of the appeal in near future. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and from the statement of the Manglesh (PW 4), it appears that Additional SP was present on the office of Narcotics Cell but no search warrant was obtained from him. As per the prosecution story 3.102 Kgs. of opium has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Investigation Officer Prateek Rai (PW 12) accepted in para 53 of his cross- examination that the aforesaid opium was in liquid form, then how it can be kept in the carry bag, which clearly indicates that the appellant has fasely been implicated in the present case. Under these circumstances he prays for suspension of the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer by contending that from the statement of the Investigating Officer- Prateek Rai (PW 12), it is transpired that he has received the secret information from the informer at about 15:30 p.m. on 12/04/2010 and thereafter he proceeded to the spot. Although Manglesh Patil (PW 4) has deposed that when he went to the office of Additional S.P. Narcotic Wings Office, Indore at about 16:00 p.m. for handing over a letter (Ex.P/9) regarding information received from the informer then at that time the Additional S.P., Narcotics Wing Indore Shri Arun Kumar Jain was present in the Office. However, there is no evidence available on record to show that when the secret information recived by the Investigating Officer, then Additional S.P. Narcotics Wing, Indore was present in his office, therefore, it cannot be said that despite having enough time for receving the search warrant from the Gazetted Officer the Investigating Officer does not comply with the provision 42 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that liquid item can be kept very well in polythene carry bag also. Therefore, there is no infirmity is present in the prosecution evidence regarding the seized article. The applicant has filed this appeal after delay of 1387 days, therefore, he cannot take a plea that he is in custody for more than 8 years and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the present appeal. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of the application.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court no case for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant is made out. Accordingly, IA No.6980/2017 is hereby dismissed.
List after ensuing summer vacation on the question of admission.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1623/2018 Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2502/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, vide order dated 30/05/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 370/2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, they have challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 25/2017, which was dismissed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 06/04/2018 by affirming the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments applicants have preferred this Revision Petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has committed an error in not properly appreciating the evidence. FIR was lodged by the complainant after 12 hours of the alleged incident against unknown persons and no description of accused persons was given. During the investigation police did not conduct any identification parade. Under these circumstances the DOC identification has no value. The complainant did not produce any source and documentary evidence that he was carrying Rs.20 Lacs cash in the bag. The independent witness of memorandum and seizure memo did not support the prosecution story. The couts below have also not considered the contradictions and ommissions present in the statement of the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by submitting that cash of Rs. 3.0 lacs and one steel box has been seized from the possession of applicant No. 1-Akram and cash of Rs. 2.0 lacs has been seized from the possession of the applicant No.2-Sadik Khan, which were kept in the red bag and the bag and steel box have been identified by the complainant as stolen property. The applicants have failed to explain that from where they possessed the aforesaid amount, which clearly indicates that they have theft the aforesaid amount from the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material available on record found the charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He further submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, IA 2502/2018 is hereby dismissed.
List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18555/2018x (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 50/2018, Police Station- Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 463, 467 and 471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18654/2018x Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary of the present case is available. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary of Crime No. 252/2016 registered at Police Station-Ratangarh, District-Neemuch by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18702/2018x Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file the relevant documents.
List in the week commencing 25/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17558/2018x (Onkar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 74/2017, Police Station-Bag, District-Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 392 and 120 (B) of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11096/2018x (Prakash Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 157/2017, Police Station- Petlawad, District-Jhabua, concerning offence under Sections 326, 323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13218/2018x (Kabu Bai Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/05/2018 Shri Avinash Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 354/2017, Police Station- Machalpur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under Sections 294, 323, 336 and 302/34 of the IPC. First application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 23/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. 1911/2018.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the remaining eye witnesses.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.584/2018x (Amjad Shah Vs. Smt. Nilobee & Ors) Indore dated : 15/05/2018 Shri Sandeep Shukla, learnedcounsel for the applicant. Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against order dated 08/11/2017 passed by the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. 503/2016, by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant is directed to pay interim maintenance @ 4,500/- per month to the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. For grant of interim maintenance, which was allowed by the trial Court, vide order dated 18/05/2017 and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents. He has paid Rs. 3,500/- on 02/08/2017 and thereafter he could not pay the interim maintenance. When the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the applicant, on 09/10/2017, the respondent No.1/wife prays that the applicant has not deposited the interim maintenance, therefore, applicant's right of defence may be closed. On the prayer of the applicant, he was granted an opportunity to deposited the interim maintenance with the condition that if he has failed to deposit the same, his right of defence presume to be closed. On 01/10/2017, he could not comply the order dated 09/10/2017,therefore, his right of defence has been closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 03/11/2017. On this date the applicant has deposited Rs.5,000/-and prays for restoration of his right of defence but the same was declined by the trial Court and the final order was passed on 08/11/2017. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit the arrearsof the entire interim maintenance, which is due till today, therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Courtd and he be permited to cross examine the respondents witnesses and produce his evidence.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ wife submitted that despite an order directing the applicant to deposit the interim maintenance, he deliberately and contumaciously flouts the said order, therefore, the trial Court has rightly stricking the defence of the applicant. Under these circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.
4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that applicant had not obeyed the order and had not deposited the arrears of the interim maintenance. However, after stricking out his defence, he had deposited Rs.5,000/- and prayed for an opportunity to pay the arrears of the interim maintenance. In this situation, the proper course would have been to direct the applicant/husband to pay the remaining portion of the interim maintenance and on payment of such amount, he could have been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondent No.1/wife and the husband should have further been directed that only in case he deposits the total arrears of maintenance pendente lite he would be permitted to lead his own evidence. Striking off evidence is a very serious matter. It renders the party defenceless. This action is to be taken only as last resort when all other means fail. It cannot be used as short cut divest any party of its valuable right to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite side and to lead evidence in support of its case. In case where the offfending party has willfully disobeyed the orders of the Court, the Court can strike off the defence.
6. In the present case on the date of final argument the applicant/husband has deposited Rs.5,000/- and he prayed for time to deposit the remaing amount of interim maintenance. There may be cases where even though the interim maintenance has been awarded, the husband for various reasons, beyond his control, is unable to pay any amount to the wife. In such cases the defence cannot be struck off merely because he has not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente lite. But this action should only be taken after affording reasonable opportunity to the offending party to pay all the arrears. The Court must come to the conclusion that the offending party is willfully disobeying the orders before taking such action.
7. Since the husband has deposited sum of Rs.8,500/-as arrears towards maintenance pendente lite and he is ready to deposit the arrears of the interim maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month, which is due till today, therefore, he shall be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondent No.1/wife and produce his evidence.
8. Under these circumstnaces, the present revision petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. The matter is remanded back to the Court of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore to proceed for the stage of recording the respondent evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore on 27/06/2018. The Registry is directed to sent the record of the case back to the concerned Family Court so as to reach there well before the date fixed. It is made clear if the applicant did not comply the undertaking given by his counsel before this Court, then he will not be permitted to cross-examine the respondents witnesses and to produce his evidence.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.248/2018 (Ali Husain Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, dated :15/05/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 07/07/2017 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atricities), Shajapur, whereby charges for offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 have been framed against the applicant.
This revision petition has been filed against order dated 07/07/2017 is barred by 95 days, therefore, the applicant has filed IA No. 378/2018, an application for condonation of delay in preesentation of the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the FIR and the statement of the complainant did not disclose that the applicant abused the complainant by calling in the name of her caste. The present incident has taken place in the house, which is not come within the public view, therefore, the provision of SC/ST Act does not attract in the present case. Inspite of that learned trial Court committed error in framing the charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)
(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and prayed for its rejection.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the applicant has demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Castes and abused her. The applicant also threatened that he will kill her. In the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has come that the applicant insulted the complainant by calling in the name of her caste.
Looking to the amendements inserted in the Atrocities Act in the year 2016, there are sufficient grounds are available for framing the charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant. Applicant has also failed to assign the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, IA No. 378/2018 and present revision petition both are dismissed.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.47/2018 (Sourabh Maru Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, dated :15/05/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 09/11/2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015, whereby the order dated 09/04/2015 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Agar (Malwa) in Case No. 11/B-121/2013-14 for convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3) (C)/52 of the Prevention from Food Adulteration Act, 2011 has been affirmed and the applicant is directed to deposit penalty amount of Rs.60,000/-.
According to the prosecugtion story, on 11/03/2014, at about 4:00 p.m., complainant-K.L. Kumbhakar reached to the shop of applicant for inspection and he purchased the Mawa Katli as a sample (which was covered by silver verk) in his shop. The sample was sent for analysis to State Public Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine Administration, Bhopal and as per the analysis report received from Bhopal, silver verk used by the applicant in preparing Mawa Katli was found adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm).
After getting permission, the complainant filed the complaint against the applicant before the Additional District Magistrate, Agar (Malwa), whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52 of the Prevention from Food Adulteration Act, 2011, vide order dated 09/04/2015. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid, the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015 before the Sessions Judge, Shajapur and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment by affirming the order of conviction, however, the penalty amount has been reduced from Rs.1.0 Lacs to Rs.60,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the seized silver verk was harmful and unfit for human consumption. The trial Court also not considered the fact that applicant has not made the silver verk in his own factory. The appellate Court has committed error in imposing capital penalty amount of Rs.60,000/- ignoring the facts that the applicant is a small shopkeeper and he is first offender and facing the trial since 2014. Inspite of that the courts' below have not extended the benefit of probation to the applicant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and prayed for its rejection.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the judgments passed by the courts' below, it appears that the applicant was selling Mawa Katli in his sweet mart and one sample of the same was taken and sent to the State Public Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine Administration, Bhopal and as per the analysis report it was found that the silver verk over Mawa Katl was adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm). This fact is proved by the prosecution that the silver verk was used by the applicant in preparation of Mawa Katli is found adulterated, hence, the applicant must be ensured that the silver verk used in the sweet should be according to the food safety rules. Therefore, he cannot take a plea that he is not maker of the silver verk, thus he should not be blamed for adulterating the silver verk.
The silver verk used for prepration of Mawa Katli by the applicant was found adulterated and it certainly harmful for human being, therefore, the courts below have not committed any error in convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 3(z)
(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52 of the Prevention from Food Adulteration Act, 2011 and imposing penalty upon him, which has already been reduced by the appellate Court from Rs.1.0 Lac to Rs.60,000/-.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court no interference is warranted. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed summarily.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 27256/2017 Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10784/2017 Indore dated :06/04/2018 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.9337/2018
(Dr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Indore dated :15/05/2018 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 13/04/2018, whereby exercising the power under Rule 20(3) of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ( for short the Act), the registration of petitioner has been suspended.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, a show cause notice is required to be given and under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing was required to pass the order. She submits that for invoking the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 20, the appropriate authority was required to disclose the urgency and also record the reason for the same, however, this provision has not been complied with in the present case by respondent No.2 and looking to the fact that default on the part of the petitioner was only minor, rules of natural justice ought to have been followed in the matter. She further submits that there was no urgency to invoke sub-section (3) of Section 20 of Act.
Counsel for respondent/State has fairly stated before this Court that there is no objection in giving an opportunity of hearing and passing a fresh order in accordance with Act.
Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 13/04/2018 with liberty to respondents to pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the Act.
Certified copy wtihin 3 days.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List on 17/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15313/2018x (Guman Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.296/20176, Police Station- Suasara, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 379 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the substantial prosecution witnesses.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14413/2018x (Hoshiyar Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :15/05/2018 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.543/2016, Police Station- Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) and 201/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16287/2018x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is adjourned.
List on 17/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16692/2018x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is adjourned.
List on 17/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 332/2014x Indore dated :15/05/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the reply of IA No. 23418/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant the case is adjourned.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.205/2015x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted four week's time to file the reply of IA No. 2307/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaing jail sentnece and for grant of bail to the appellant-Devendra Singh.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 606/2015x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondentd/UOI. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant the case if adjourned.
List after four weeks for consideration of IA No. 7299/2017, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Kojaram.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 364/2016x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has already filed the reply of IA No. 7934/2017, first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Prashant @ Nannu.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Govt. Advocate has not supplied the copy of reply to him.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to supply the copy of reply of IA No. 7934/2017 to the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the day.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 426/2016x Indore dated :15/05/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.440/2016x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 2214/2018, 1 st application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Shankar @ Raju.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 2214/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 2214/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.672/2016x Indore dated :15/05/2018 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks' time to argue on IA No. 1576/2018, second application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of baial to the appellant-Shahrukh.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 709/2012x Indore dated :11/05/2018 Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No. 2604/2018, repeat (second) application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence awarded to the applicant and for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.1672/2010, vide order dated 06/03/2012 for the offence under Section 304(A)of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation. He has challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 119/2012, which was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 26/06/2012. The conviction for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC was affirmed, however, the sentence was reduced from 1 years RI to 6 months R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment applicant has preferred this Revision Petition before this Court.
From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant has moved an application under Section397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence awarded by the appellate Court and the same was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, and the applicant was released on bail subject to condition that he shall mark his presence before this registry of this Court on every date fixed by the Office in this regard. However, on 06/01/2016, applicant failed to appear before this Court. Thereafter, on the request of his counsel the case was fixed to keep him present before this Court on 12/03/2018 but he did not mark his presence on the said date, therefore, vide order dated 12/03/2018, warrant of arrest was issued against him and in pursuant to that the applicant was arrested by the Police and produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam on 12/04/2018 and since then he is in custody.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after granting bail by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, the applicant applicant did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Due to illness and lost of date slip, he could not appear before this Court on 06/01/2016. He also assured that in future the applicant will be regularly mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on each and every date fixed by the Office in this behalf. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that after suspension of jail Sentence by this Court, vide order dated 12/07/2012, the applicant was remained absent on 29/09/2014 and he was appeared on 22/07/2015 and moved an application for condonation of absence, which was allowed by this Court and thereafter, on 06/01/2016 the applicant made default in apperance before this Court, therefore, it is clear that the applicant is habitual defaulter and he has misused the liberty earlier granted to him. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of the application.
After considering the the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the applicant is habitual defaulter in marking his presence before this Court. He failed to mark his presence on the date fixed by this Court without assigning any sufficient reason, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court no case for grant of suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail is made out to the applicant. Accordingly, IA No. 2604/2018 is hereby dismissed.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1320/2018 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1998/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323,324, 325/34 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months,1 years,1 years and 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for each offence respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Applicants have already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Under these circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material evidence available on record found the charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offences.
From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicants were not present before the trial Court on the date of pronouncement of judgment and the judgment was passed in their absence. After passing the judgment by the trial Court, they did not surrendered before the trial Court so that the jail sentence awarded to them to be executed. They have surrendered before the trial Court after lapse of eight and half months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court, which clearly indicates that they have misused the liberty so granted to them.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no sufficient ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, IA 1998/2018 is hereby dismissed.
List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9525/2017 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Smt. Sangita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 12/4/2017 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. 798/2016,whereby order dated 12/08/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 25706/2014 for allowing the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. During pendency of the case respondent has filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C alleging that the applicant is a money lender and he is doing money lending business without having any license. Earlier also he has filed 10 cases under Section138 of the NI Act against another persons, therefore, the applicant be directed to furnish the certified copy of the complaint cases mentioned in Serial Nos. 4 to 10 in the application. Said application was allowed by the trial Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision petition has been filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 12/04/2017 by the Additional Seesions Judge on the ground that the revision petition has been filed against the interlocutory application, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Setu Raman Vs. Rajamanikkam, 2009(5) SCC 153, this revision is not tenable. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this court in present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of M.P. Money Lenders Act is not applicable in the cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, therefore, the question that applicant is having valid license or not for doing money lending business in no relevant in the present matter . Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in directing him to filed certified copies of the previous complaints filed by him against another persons under NI Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, therefore, it may not be interfered. It is also alleged that the applicant will regularly advance loan amount to the needy persons without holding any license. From the definition of the Section 11(H)of the Money Lenders Act,1934 it is evident that the present case is not maintainable because the applicant is carrying a money lending business without having valid license and as a security of loan amount, he obtains the cheques of the advanced amount from the borrowers.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the case, it appropriate to first deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. First attack of the learned counsel for the applicant is on the applicability of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 in the cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. It may be appropriate to refer the provisions of M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934.
" Section 11-H of the said act lays down that no money lending suit for the recovery of loan advanced by the money lender was proceeded in the civil court, until the court is satisfied that he holds the valid registration certificate or he is not required to have registration certified by reasons of the fact that he does not carry out a business of money lending ( in any area of M.P.)"
7. In the present case it is alleged by the respondent that the applicant is a money lender, who is doing the aforesaid business without having any license. Although the complainant denied the aforesaid allegation but he has not claimed that he is owned any license for doing money lending business. From the provision 11(H) of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 , it is clear that no suit for the recovery of loan advanced by money lender will proceed in a civil Court if the money lender had a valid registration certificate meaning thereby any person, who is involved in money lending business cannot recovered the loan amount through Court. 8. As per the explanation of the Negotiable Instruments Act " Debt or other liability means a legal enforceable debt or other liability". So a loan advanced by a money lender, who is doing a business of money lending without license is not a debt or other liability and provision of 138 of the NI Act will not apply to such transactions in the light of provision under Section 11(H) of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934.
8. In the light of the above discussion this court come to the conclusion that the trial Court has committed any legal error in directing the applicant to file certified copies of the complaint as mentioned at serial Nos. 4 to10 in the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. so that the respondent can able to prove that the applicant is doing money lending business and hence the cheques issued by respondent in favour of the applicant is not for the debt or liability or legal enforcible liability.
9.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9994/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 ( for brevity 'the Code') for assailing the order dated 07/04/2017 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 872/2016, whereby order dated 29/08/2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 0/2015 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore for rejection of the private complaint has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore alleging that on 14/12/2014, at about 8 p.m., respondents teased and abused his wife. When he prevented them, then they broke his foot. He reported the incident to the Police, due to this enmity on 05/07/2015 and afterwards, the respondents sent a message through whats-app with intend to insult him, in which they threatened that they will kill him and kidnapped his wife. They also used filthy languages in the message, which was defamatory to him.
3. The complainant was presented on 29/01/2015 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore and thereafter the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses called by the complainant were recorded to enable the concerned Magistrate to taking the cognizance on the complaint. After recording the statement the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore vide order dated 29/08/2016 rejected the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by contending that prima-facie no offence under Sections 294, 500 and 506 are made out against the respondents.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore revision application was filed before the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore which was registered as Cr.R. No. 872/2016 and final order was passed on07/04/2017, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed on the ground that the applicant has failed to establish prima facie case against the respondents. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie sufficient grounds are made out against the respondents for prosecuting them, however, the trial Court fails to consider the material available on record and committed error of law and fact in rejecting the private complaint filed by the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by contending that impugned judgments are not suffered from any illegality and perversity, therefore, impugned judgments may not be interfered.
7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties to the case and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that applicant- Abbas Ali deposed in his statement recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. that the respondent No.6- Burhani Saifi sent a message on whats- app through his mobile phone alleging that he is drunker and he teased the girls and he also collected extortion money, due to this message his image is damaged in society. But neither he mentioned his mobile number nor the mobile number from which he received this message. It is also pertinent to note that that aforesaid allegations were not mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant, therefore, aforesaid statements of the applicant falls in the category of omissions, hence, it cannot be accepted.
9. Although Mohan Lal (CW2) and Bano Bai (CW 3) have also supported the version of the complainant, however, Mohan Lal (CW
3) accepted that he has not received any message on his whats-app and he knew about the aforesaid message on the information given by the applicant. Inspite of that in his view the complainant is a good person. The statement of the Mohan Lal (CW 3) clearly indicates that neither he had seen nor received any message,which is alleged to send by the respondent No.6 on whats-app of the complainant and no adverse facts come to his mind regarding the conduct of the complainant.
10. Bano Bai (CW 3), although deposed in her statement that she received whats-app message on her mobile in which it was alleged that the applicant consumed the liquor and teased the girls. But she did not say in her statement that the aforesaid whats-app message was sent by any of the respondents.
11. After going through the record and material available on record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts below. The Courts' below have come to the conclusion after due appreciation of the material and evidence available on record and dismissed the private complaint filed by the applicant. The appellate Court also after due appreciation of the material available on record held that there is nothing on record to invoke the revisional jurisdiction for interference in the impugned order. In the considered opinion of this Court, judgments passed by the both the courts' below is proper and as per the material available on record.
12. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgments passed by the courts' below. Accordingly, this application filed under Section of the Code is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3671/2017x (Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/05/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Present revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/10/2017 passed by 3rd Addtional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.A. No. 973/2016, whereby confirmed the judgment dated 02/11/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur, whereby convicted the applicant under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State raised an objection about maintainability of this revision stating that after his conviction, the applicant has not surrendered to custody as also not filed any declaration to the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court and he is in custody and prays for dismissal of this reviosion as not maintainable.
From the perusal of the records, it reveals that at the time of conviction and sentence, the applicant was not present before the Appellate Court and the judgment was pronounced in his absence. After his conviction, he has not surrendered to custody and instead of that, he filed the present revision without incorporating declaration to the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court and he is in custody. Thus, the present revision filed by the applicant without his surrender before the court below is not maintainable.
In the case of Dilip Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534, this Court while dealing with the maintainability of the revision petition, has held that a Criminal Revision against conviction is tenable only when it contains a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below.
In viw of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent on the point of maintainability is accepted and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9126/2018x (State of M.P. vs. Babu Singh & Ors.) Indore dated :11/05/2018 Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard.
ORDER The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 30/11/2017 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in S.T. No. 2206/2010, whereby the respondents-Babusingh, Veer Singh and Nagu Singh have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the IPC.
2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondents were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the IPC.
3. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it appears although some Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika were recovered from the possession of the respondents, however, they were found to be correct and true. No report was lodged by anybody regarding stolen of these Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika. Investigation Officer-S.S. Chouhan (PW 14) in para 34 of his cross-examination admitted that he has not found that any accused persons furnish bail papers on the basis of these Bhu Rin Pustika, which were recovered from their possession. During the investigation police has not made any attempt to verify the signatures of the persons, who have signed those bail papers, who were suspected to be forged. There are material contradictions were also found in the statement of the witnesses. According to us, the trial Court did not erred in acquitting the respondents.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out that how and in what manner the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgement.
5. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for warranting admission.
Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7696/2018x
(State of M.P. vs. Vijay @ Akhatya) Indore dated :11/05/2018 Shri Sudarshan Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard.
ORDER The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone (East Nimar) in S.T. No. 800536/2016, whereby the respondent-Vijay @ Akhatya has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II) of the IPC.
2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondent was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II) of the IPC.
3. Prosecutrix is a major girl. On going through her testimony, we find that the sexual act done by the respondent with her consent and she travelled with the respondent by bus and train for so many places. They lived together for a period of 1 month and during this period she has not raised any alarm against the conduct of the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that if at all act of rape has been committed from the prosecutrix then it might be consent with the applicant as she is a major girl of 19 years. Similarly the trial Court has also come to the conclusion that there is no sign of injury has been found on the body of the prosecturix. As per the statement of the Dr. Sarika Patel (PW 3), who examined the prosecutrix and on which basis this cannot be inferred that any forcible intercourse has been committed on the prosecutrix.
4. Looking to the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion findings recorded by the trial Court does not appears to be perverse or illegal, which can be interfered by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that if the trial Court after due appreciation of the material available on record came to the conclusion of acquittal and the findings is not perverse then normally it should not be interfered by the appellate Court.
5. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9035/2018 x ( Ajay & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER This application under Section 482/437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 24/01/2018 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Criminal Revison No. 9/2018, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Criminal Revision of the applicant and confirmed the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 516/2017 dated 22/12/2017.
The facts giving rise to this application are that the applicants were facing trial before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act in Criminal Case No. 516/2017. After reading over the particulars of the offfence to the applicant, the matter was first placed for recording of prosecution evidence on 17/05/2017, however, after lapse of 60 days no evidence could be recorded, therefore, the application was filed by the applicants under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on the ground that after lapse of period, as prescribed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. the present case which is triable by the Magistrate could not be concluded.
Leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that 8 prosecution witnesses has already been examined and the trial is in progress, therefore, it is not proper to release the applicants on bail. Being aggrieved by this order the applicants have filed criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the 2 nd Addtional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur,vider order dated 24/01/2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 9/2018 by contending that the reasons recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were just and proper. Thus, no interference is called for.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that both the Courts below did not consider the facts and law properly and they wrongly interpreted the provision 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001(1) JLJ 404, in which it has been held that the provision of 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory and the reasons given by the Courts below that it is doubtful that they would be attending the Court on each and every date fixed by the Magistrate were not judicious. The co-ordinate Bench observed as below:-
"3.......................... These reasoning indicating the apprehension of the learned Courts below, by no strech of imagination, could be termed as judicious, and therefore, they are not of such a nature as to thwart and wash off the manadatory character of the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the considered view that the statutory right given to the accused by the above provisions cannot be taken away. Since the applicant had all through remained in custody during the said period of more than sixty days from the first date fixed for recording the evidence, he would be deemed to have been clothed with the right to be released on bail. The rejection of his application under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Magistrate and later the dismissal of his revision by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, was nothing but the abuse of the process of Court and given rise to the miscarriage of justice.".
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court, it appears that on 17/5/2017, the particulars of the offence were read over to the applicantd and the case was fixed for recording of the evidence for the first time on 17/05/2017. Till 15/02/2018,only 12 witnesses have been examined and meanwhile absconded accused Ugrasen has been arrested by the Police and now the case is fixed for filing of supplementary charge-sheet against him. Therefore, it is clear that there is no possibility of the early conclusion of the trial. The applicant is in custody for more than 1 years. Although the provision of Section 437(6) are not mandatory but directory, however, it is evident from the record that the prosecution could not be concluded his witnesses within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence and there is no likelihood of final disposal of the case in near future,therefore, in the considered view of this Court that statutory right given to the accused by provision 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away. Consequently, this application is allowed and the orders passed by the Courts' below are hereby set aside. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17167/2018 (Raju @ Shahjad Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :11/05/2018 Shri L.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.260/2017, Police Station- Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 307, 323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.
After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10771/2018 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Saboo, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24/03/2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 64/2017 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, whereby order dated 26/08/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch in Criminal Complaint Case No. 495/2015 has been affirmed, by which the application filed by the applicants under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 is an occupier of the factory Adani Willmar Limited and engaged inter alia in the operation relation to the manufacture of oil, De-oiled cake etc. In its factory situated at village Bhatkheda, District-Neemuch; whereas the applicant No.2 is a Factory Manager of the aforesaid factory. On 09/4/2015, 10/04/2015 and 11/04/2015 Factory Manager inspected the factory premises and informed that the 5 workers were died due to the violation of Section 7-A and 36 of the Act read with Rule 73 and Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of Rule 107 of the M.P. Factories Rules punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. On 11/05/2015 the respondent filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the applicants therein alleging violation of Section 7-A and 36 of the Act read with Rule 73 and Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of Rule 107 of the M.P. Factories Rules punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. On that basis the Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the applicant and issued summons against them on 11/05/2015. On 20/06/2017, the applicants filed an application under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for conversion of the case from summons trial into warrant trial on the premises that the applicant/accused has to prove volumonious record and witnesses, and this is not possible in summon's case. The said application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch on the ground that delay may occur due to conversion of summons trial case into warrant trial case. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the revision petition was filed before the Sessions Court and this was also dismissed on the ground that prayer made by the applicants can be considered after the trial is commenced and the case is not reached to the stage of commencement of trial, therefore, the application filed by the applicants is premature.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has draw the attention of this Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 775, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court while dealing with the issued has held that in cases of trials of summons cases by magistrates the trial would be considered to have commenced when the accused to appear or brought before the magistrate are asked under Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. He also placed reliance in the case of Raj Kishosre Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 495; wherein it was held that since the person is present before the Court and Court hears the parties on framing of charges, at this stage trial is said to have commenced.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the approach adopted by the revisional Court is hypothetical and he has failed to consider that the trial of summon case is commenced when the accused appear or brought before the Magistrate and he asked that whether he plead guilty or have any defence to make. The trial Court has wrongly concluded that the trial is not yet commenced. Therefore, he prays that the case be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of their application filed under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for conversion of summons trial into warrant trial.
5. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the record.
6. Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
" 259. Power of Court to convert summons-cases into warrant cases. When in the course of the trial of a summons-case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re- hear the case in the manner provided by this Code for the trial of warrant-cases and the may recall any witnesses who may have been examined."
7. On reading of Section 259 of the Cr.P.C., I am of the view that this exercise of jurisdiction under Section of the 259 Cr.P.C. is nopt available to the Magistrate at the stage earlier to the commencement of trial. The very opening words of the section " when in the course of the trial of a summons case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the magistrate that in the interest of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases, such magistrate may proceed to rehear the case in the manner provided by this code for the trial of warrant cases and may recally any witness who may have been examined."
8. In the present case the words " rehear and rehear the case"
indicates that the Magistrate should commenced the proceedings from the start or de novo meaning thereby that after the trial has begun the Magistrate feels that in the interest of justice the offence is tried in accordance with procedure for trial of warrant cases then he may be converted summon trial into trial of warrant cases. The stage of trial has not come to the stage, where the Magistrate can resort the provision of this Section. Although, the trial of summon cases is commenced when the accused or brought before the Magistrate and he asked under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. that whether he plead guilty or have any defence to make. But in the present case the Magistrate has not read over the particular of offence.
9. Having carefully examined the aforesaid provision and consideration of material brought on record, in the considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicants under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. and the intereference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 red with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for transferring the Criminal Case No. 2104/2011 (State of M.P. Through police-station-Ujjain Vs. Sandeep and others) pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain to Competent court of C.J.M. or J.M.F.C. Court, Gwalior.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of complaint made by the applicant at Police-Station Kotwali, District- Ujjain, an FIR bearing Crime No. 29/2011 under Section 498(A) of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. The respondent No.3 is a practioning lawyer at Ujjain and the family members of respondent No.2 threatened her when she went to Ujjain for evidence, therefore, the applicant is having apprehension in her mind that in case she appeared at Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that The applicant is presently residing at Gwalior, which is about 500 Kms. away from Ujjain. She is young lady having a female child and there is no male member to escort her from Gwalior to Ujjain on the date of hearing. So on account of convenience of the parties, the matter, which is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain be transferred to competent court of C.J.M. Or J.M.F.C. Gwalior.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record it is apparent that the applicant is residing at Gwalior and on the basis of complaint made by her, a criminal case is registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. It is alleged that respondent No.3 is a practising lawyer at Ujjain and the applicant is having apprehension in her mind that when she will appear in Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her by respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Under these circumstances the prayer made by the applicant looking bonafide. Although the applicant is prayed for transfer of case from Ujjain to Gwalior but it does not find just and proper because respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are old persons and the distance from Ujjain to Gwalior is 500 Kms and if the case is transferred from Ujjain to Gwalior, it will create difficulty for them to attend the Court at Gwalior.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the interest of justice would be served in transferring the case from Ujjain to Dewas. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the Criminal Case No. 2104/2011 be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain to the Court of C.J.M. Dewas.
7. With the aforesaid M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017 stands disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the concrned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18205/2018 Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for relexation of the condition as imposed by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017.
2. Following condition was imposed by this Court while granting the bail to the applicant:-
"It is directed that on being so released on bail he would mark his presence before the concerning police- station on first Sunday of each month at 11:00 a.m."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The trial is pending before the Sessions court and the charges have been framed. Now the case is fixed for recording of evidence. Applicant is regularly marking his presence before the trial Court, therefore, there is no need for marking his presence before the concerning police-station. Applicant has already complied with all directions imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for relaxation with the aforesaid condition imposed by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017.
4. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The conditions as stated above in para 2 stands deleted.
5. Copy of this order be kept in the record of M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1174/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Revision is admitted for final hearing. List for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1178/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1180/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1181/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.R. 3574/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 3574/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Mohan Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of fresh process fee within a week, let notice be issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 23736/2017, an application for condonation of delay by registered AD and ordinary mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1188/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Mahesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Let record of the courts below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of admission.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1195/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1196/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1197/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to submit a report as to whether the confiscation proceedings with regard to vehicle Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-K-9430 has been completed or not ?
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1205/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter on the question of admission.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1206/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.R. No. 2946/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 2946/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of admission.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1209/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Ravindra Bhawsar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for listing the matter alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017 for analogous hearing in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1218/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of admission.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1227/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition has become rendered infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1244/2017x Indore dated :10/05/2018 Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the applicant. Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. On payment of process fee within a week, let notice be issued to respondent by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4146/2018x (Basanti Verma Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 09/05/2018 Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to direct the trial Court to decide the S.T. No. 1308/2009 within a period of 60 days.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of FIR lodged by the applicant Basanti Verma regarding murder of her son Vikas @ Gultu an offence was registered against the accused persons namely Raju Malviya, Rajendra Singh Solanki, Mahendra Solanki, Shankar Yadav, Raju Yadav & other persons under Section 302 /149 of the IPC bearing Crime No.745/2009 at Police-Station- Chandan Nagar, District-Indore. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the Court of 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore as S.T. No. 1308/2009.
3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that trial is pending since 2009 and applicant has filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and this Court vide orders dated 11/02/2011 and 13/07/2012, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible. Inspite of aforesaid directions the trial is still pending. The case is listed for recording the statement of defence witnesses since 2016 and sufficient opportunities have been given to the accused persons for adducing their defence evidence. But neither the defence witnesses has been produced nor summons or warrant has been served on the witnesses. Hence, the trial Court be directed to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of 60 days.
2. After consideing the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this petition is allowed. As the trial is pending for more than 5 years, therefore, the trial Court is expected to decide this case on priority basis. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within 4 months from the receipt of certified copy of this record. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, then the trial Court shall seek extension of time by stating the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17538/2018x Indore dated :09/05/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file the certified copy of proceedings of the trial Court to demonstrate the current status of the trial.
List in the next week (S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17580/2018x (Dashrath @ Bapu Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/05/2018 Shri Vinod Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.473/2017, Police Station-Sardarpur, District-Dhar, concerning offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1863/2018 x (Ajay Kumar Vs. Poonamchand) Indore dated : 08/05/2018 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Service report of notice issued against the respondent is awaited.
The applicant has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,38,204/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction the applicant has preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Mandsaur, in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur affirmed the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, however, sentence has been reduced from 6 months R.I. to 1 months R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No.2827/2018, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Ajay Kumar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was issued by the applicant in furtherance to any liability and inspite of that the courts below have convicted the applicant. Under these circumstnaces he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Ajay Kumar.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
The question arises for consideration before this Court is whether this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicant has not surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would be tenable.
It is true that there is no requirement under the Cr.P.C. which makes it necessary for the accused to surrender after conviction before filing Criminal Revision, however, as per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules 48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision against conviction is tenable only when applicant has given declaration to the effect that the appliant is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction.
In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this IA No.2827/2018 and criminal revision are dismissed as not maintainable .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018 Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/SPE.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Indore dated : /05/2018
Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.627/2018x
Indore, dated :08/05/2018
Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the order dated 04/12/2015 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, Manasa District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 6/20102, whereby charges for offence under Sections 8/15(C) read with Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Jakir.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 893/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 701 days in preferring this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail and no male member of his family met the applicant in jail, who take intiative on behalf of the applicant, hence the applicant could not file this revision filed in prescribed time period.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that till now 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and the trial is in advance stage. There is no sufficient grounds are mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.
Considering the fact that the trial is in advance stage and 6 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, therefore, at this stage no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order coupled with the fact that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 701 days in preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 893/2018 is dismissed. Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby dismissed as time barred.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 525/2011x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 1786/2018, an application issuance of production warrant against appellant No.2-Amarjeet.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No.2-Amarjeet is detained in another case in District-Jail, Indore, hence, production warrant be issued against him for securing his presence befor this Court.
On due consideration IA No. 1786/2018 is allowed. Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Amarjeet for securing his presence before this Court on 22/06/2018.
List on 22/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 350/2012x Indore dated : 08/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3153/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant No.1 on 08/01/2018 before the registry of this Court.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu on 08/01/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.3153/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu before the Registry this Court on 08/01/2018 is hereby condoned.
Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 26/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 567/2012x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant-Munnalal @ Amar Singh is not present today. Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Munnalal @ Amarsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/07/2018.
List on 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 195/2013x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per the report recieved from Sessions Judge, Shajapur, the appellant-Bhagwan Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant has already been suffered the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and he was also deposited the fine amount and he is released from the Jail on 01/11/2017 after completion of the sentence.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
Acccordingly this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 331/2013x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20958/2017, an application for correction in the name as per Adhar Card.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 20958/2017.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 20958/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1647/2013x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant-Harish Pushpad is not present today. Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Harish Pushpad for securing his presence before this Court on 09/07/2018.
List on 09/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 8979/2013x Indore dated :08/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Today the case is listed for in default of payment of P.F. On earlier occassion also the Court has already been granted time to the appellant to pay the process fee. But inspite of that the applicant has not complied with the order. Today also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for non-compliance of Court order and for want of prosecution.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 591/2014x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No1. - Asharam before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 02/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1994/2014x Indore dated :08/05/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 2133/2017, an application for presence of the appellant by production warrant.
It is stated in the application that the appellant -Keshuram could not appear before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2016 because he has been arrested by the Police in connection with Crime No. 87/2011 registered at Police-Station-Badwah, District-Khargone and now he is in Central Jail, Indore since 27/09/2016.
On due consideration IA No. 2133/2017 is allowed. Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Keshuram for securing his presence before this Court on 27/06/2018.
List on 27/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 849/2015x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Ms. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per Office report appellant-Ganesh has failed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2017.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ganesh for securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018.
List on 25/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1161/2015x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant No.2-Dayaram received unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail, Rajgarh in another case.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Dayaram for securing his presence before this Court on 28/06/2018.
List on 28/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.05/2016x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondent. Appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 8/18(B) of the NDPS Act, vide order dated 04/09/2015 passed by Additional Special Judge (NDPS), Garoth, District-Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 8/2013.
Heard.
Looking to the findings given by the trial Court in para 26 of the impugned judgment, the appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for final hearing.
Let bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/- be issued against the respondent for securing his presence before this Court.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1302/2016x Indore dated :08/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Bailawable warrant issued against applicant-Kailashchandra received unserved with the report that he was not found in given address.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant has neither deposited the cheque amount of Rs.3.75 Lacs nor he has surrendered before the trial Court.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the applicant for securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018.
List on 04/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16438/2018x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17353/2018x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17422/2018x (Chamariya Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 98/2017, Police Station- Chandanpur, District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under Section 379 of the IPC r/w Sections 25(A)/30 of the Arms Act.
After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter is listed before the trial Court on 16/05/2018 for recording the statement of the witneses, therefore, he prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 17/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10041/2018x (Gopal @ Lala Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :08/05/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.152/2017, Police Station- Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 363,364, 370 and 370(A)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing some time on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14407/2018x Indore dated :08/05/2018 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3154/2014, an application for amendment in the array of bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..
On due consideration IA No. 3154/2018 is allowed. Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the bail application during the course of the day.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.421/2012x (Gangadhar @ Gangaram Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:07/05/2018 Shri Pramod Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2751/2018-repeat (7th) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the the appellant -Gangadhar @ Gangaram.
Appellant-Gangadhar @ Gangaram has been found guilty for offence under Section 8 (C) /20(b) (ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is also submitted that the house, from which the alleged contraband has been recovered belongs to co-accused-Gokul, who has already been acquitted from the offence. There is nothing on record to substantiate that the aforesaid house was actually possessed by the appellant at the time of alleged incident. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Electoral List, in which it was mentioned that the house owned by the appellant. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly concluded that the 48.20 Kgs. of Ganja has been recovered from the house of the appellant. Applicant is in custody since 11/08/2009 and he has already suffered more than 8 years and 6 months of his jail sentence. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record. From the findings given by the trial Court, it is clearly evident that the house from which alleged contraband has been recovered is belonging to the present appellant. Tolaram (PW 11) has also admitted that the aforesaid house is belonging to the present appellant and the agreement of sale was a fake document, which prepared later. On this ground earlier applications of the appellant have been dismissed on merits by this Court, vide order dated 05/11/2012 and 01/10/2015 respectively.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid, no case for grant of suspension of jail sentence is made out. Accordingly, IA No. 2751/2018 is dismissed.
Considering the fact that the appellant has completed his 8 years and 6 months jail sentence. Office is directed to examine and thereafter, list the matter on any working saturday as per circular issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18449/2017x Indore dated :07/05/2018 Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let present status report of Special S.T. No. 08/2016 be called from the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Mandsaur.
List immediately after receipt of status report.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11618/2018x (Amit Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :07/05/2018 Shri Akshay Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.526/2017, Police Station- Heeranagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 302 and 506 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10676/2018x Indore dated :07/05/2018 Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 8606/2018x Indore dated :07/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17225/2018x Indore dated :07/05/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.193/2011 Indore dated :05/05/2018 Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Porwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge Indore dated : /05/2018
Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1179/2007 Indore dated :05/05/2018 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment (Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge Indore dated : /05/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16781/2018x (Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2018, Police Station-Suwasara, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2694/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to file some documents.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16603/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify the factum of illness of the applicant's wife and submit its report by the next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16691/2018x (Madhukar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (2nd) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.582/2017, Police Station- Sendhwa, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after some time.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16694/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16729/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to produce FSL report.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12077/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office, failing which this bail application shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16122/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Gopal Hardia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12801/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 14/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16689/2018x (Ajay Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.109/2017, Police Station-Neemuch Cantt., District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13914/2018x (Dileep Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.51/2016, Police Station- Badod, District-Agar, concerning offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn, however, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x (Wasim Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.594/2017, Police Station- Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x (Mujahid Khan Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.594/2017, Police Station- Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12465/2018x (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.317/2017, Police Station-Maingaon, District-Khargone, concerning offence under Sections 294, 323, 307 and 302/34 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x Indore dated :04/05/2018 Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3029/2018, an application for ignoring the defect pointed out by the Office.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Office has pointed out defect that the Crime Number mentioned in the second bail application does not tally with the crime number mentioned in the first application filed before this Court. It is further submitted that earlier bail application registered at M.Cr.C. No. 4096/2018, in which inadvertantly Crime Number has been mentioned as 164/2017; whereas the actual Crime Number is 851/2017 pertaining to Police-Station-Jhabua, therefore, he prayed that defect pointed out by the Office may be ignored.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, sufficient ground is made out to ignored the defect pointed out by the Office. Accordingly, IA No. 3029/2018 is allowed and defect pointed out by the Office is hereby ignored.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.354/1999 Indore dated :15/02/2018 Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the appellants. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /05/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1443/2018 (Lalitabai & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:03/05/2018 Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2227/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicants.
The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to 6 months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch. The appeal filed against the conviction and sentence before 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 21/03/2018. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments this revision petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and they have not misused the liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and committed error in convicting the applicants. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the revision coming for final hearing in the near future and fine amount has already been deposited. Hence, the applicants may be benefitted by the suspension of jail sentence.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that 6 wild life pheasants were recovered from the possession of the applicants and the recovery is proved from the statements of Gopal Bandhu-Deputy Ranger (PW 1), Nathu Singh Chandrawat-Retd. Ranger Officer (PW 2), Lalita Yaadav- Forest Guard (PW 3) and Chhaganlal-Chowkidar (PW 6). Thus the Courts' below have rightly held that the prosecution is succeeded to prove offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to point out that how and in what manner the view taken by the Courts' below is not plausible. Under these circumstances, no case for suspension of jail sentence of the applicants is made out. Hence, IA No. I.A. No.2227/2018 is hereby dismissed.
List the revision for admission on 17/05/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt Unique No. Dhruv Prasad Sen 171015481 & Kaki 171015497 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14348/2018x (Vinay @ Varun Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :01/05/2018 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 327/2016 registered at Police-Station-Malharganj, District- Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC.
According to the prosecution story, the present applicant alongwith co- accused Pankaj Sharma and Aadit Bafna executed three different sale deeds to three persons of plot bearing survey No. 2/4, situated at North Raj Mohalla, Indore. Some other persons were presented as owners of the plot.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length. First application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court, vide order dated 16/03/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2240/2017; whereas second application of the applicant was also dismissed, vide order dated 30/06/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4658/2017.
After dismissal of the earlier two applications, there appears to be no change in circumstances. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding his innocency has already been considered by this Court on 16/03/2017 and after that there is no change in circustances is found, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this repeat bail application is dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 572/2018x
Indore dated :01/05/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 182/2018x Indore dated :01/05/2018 Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 15654/2018x Indore dated :01/05/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to call criminal antecedents of the applicant.
By way of last opportunity time is granted. List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ WP No. 9064/2018 Sushila Devi Garg vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Meena Chapekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
ORDER (Passed on 23/04/2018) Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents- Municipal Corporation, Dewas not to demolish the shops situated at Kaila Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas and to reconsidere the application submitted by the petitioner for compounding strictly in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the action of the respondent No.3- Building Officer of Dewas, Municipal Corporation by way of notices dated 07/04/2018 and 17/04/2018, deeming the repaired rooms, as construction without permission even after passing of the order of the considering the case for compounding, dated 03/04/2018 passed in WP No. 7705/2018, rejected the application for compounding and giving notice on 17/04/2018 to remove the alleged construction within 24 hours, otherwise, it will be demolished. The petitioner while challenging the aforesaid notices, however, on 19/04/2018, at about 7:00 p.m. the respondent demolished the shop, therefore, petitioner filed IA No. 1835/2018, an application for amendment in the petition, by which the petitioner claimed that respondents be directed either be restored the shops on its original position or he may be permitted to raise temporary arrangement to conduct the shops or paid compensation for the said demolition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that on the next date of filing this writ petition, the respondent No.3-demolished the shops in question contending that these are constructed without getting permission from the Municipal Corporation and the land in which the aforesaid shops were constructed is required for widening of the road.
4. Due to the demolition of the shops, the relief prayed by the petitioner is rendered infructuous, therefore, the petitioner seeking permission to amend the petition, either permitted her to raise temporary structure on the land or respondents be directed to paid compensation for the demolition of the shops. From the documents filed alongwith the petition it appears that the aforesaid shops were constructed on the land bearing Survey No. 645/2, situated at Kaila Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas without obtaining prior sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Dewas. Thus, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner for removing the aforesaid illegal construction work under Section 307 of the Nagar Palika Act alleging that the petitioner has made this construction work so that she can claimed compensation from the Govt., because under the Dewas Development Plan 2015, MR-01 road is porposed in the land where the petitioner has constructed the shops. The aforesaid construction has already been demolished by the Muncipal Corporation, therefore, there is no remedy is availble for the petitioner. If he has opined that the Municipal Corporation has removed his construction unauthorisedly, then he can claim the compensation for the damages from the Munciipal Corporation by filing civil suit.
5. The citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658 and in the case of M/s Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. Vs. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 SCC 116, are based either in criminal case or may to breach of policy conditions, in which the Hon'ble apex Court directed for compensation to the petitioner, therefore, these citations are not applicable in the prsent matter.
6. The question whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Muncipal Corporation, it cannot be decided in the writ petition. Accordingly, IA No. 1835/2018 and this writ petition have no merits and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge Judge
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ WP No. 9351/2018 M/s. Shiv Industries vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER (Passed on 27/04/2018) Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is praying for execution of the impugned recover process by respondenet No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all consequential acion under secruritization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of Security Interst Act, 2002.
5. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has availed the credit facilities of cash credit and term loan of Rs.2.60 crores to run his industry and mortgaged the property in the respondent No.2-Bank and he is paying the installment in time, however, due to some unavoidable circumstances, some installment were not paid in prescribed time frame, therefore, the respondents-Bank has issued notice to deposit the overdue amount and mentioned that if the overdue amount has not deposited early, then the account will be classified as NPA. Then the petitioner has submitted that he is not in a condition to regularize loan account and requested not to utilized the cheque as they were given as security and requested to take possession of land, building, plant and machinery with immediate effect and sale and adjust the outstanding amount and mentioned the value of property as Rs. 3.75 crores, however, without considering his representation, the respondent-Bank has classified the loan account as NPA on 31/12/2017 and issued notice under Section 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act. On 26/03/2018, the petitioner has handover the possession of the mortgaged property, raw material, plant and machinery to the respondent Bank. The respondent No.2-Bank has appointed Effective Recoveries Pvt. Ltd. as recovery agent with malafide intention to delay the recovery process and to charge interest and unnecessary expenses against the petitioner and respondents are threatening to petitioner that they will auctioned the property below the valuation report and they will initiate the action against him by filing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrtuments Act without considering the fact that the cheques were given as security of loan and not for repayment of loan. The respondents are not following the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India and trying to publish the auction notice of the mortgaged property without ascertaining the actual market value of the sale.
6. The dispute arisen between the parties pertaining to the recovery of loan amount contemplated under Sarfaesi Act, 2002. In view of the law laiddown by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of INDIA SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus STATE OF M.P. & OTHERSINDIA SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS, in WA No. 489/2016 decided on 21/12/2017, the action taken by the petitioner can be subjected to appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
7. Consdering the aforesaid, we find that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the proceedings adopted by the respondents-Bank for the recovery of loan amount, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge Judge
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018 Bharat Goyal vs. State of M.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/SPE.
ORDER (Passed on 18/04/ 2018) Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-
The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 17/11/2017 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Indore in Special Case No. 13/2017, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the applicant regarding non-compliance of provision stipulated under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05/10/2016, complainant-
Devdas Makwana made a written complaint to the S.P. Lokayukta, Indore stating that on 09/08/2016, he applied for sanction of loan amount of Rs.2.0 Lacs before Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank for purchasing of auto-rickshaw. On 02/09/2016, he approached the bank to seek information regarding his loan amount and subsidy amount, where applicant asked for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as bribe amount to hand over the cheque of loan amount so approved and to transfer the subsidy amount in his loan account. Bank Manager-Bharat Goyal also stated that if the complainant will not give him a bribe of Rs.20,000/- , then he will not transfer the subsidy amount in his loan account, thereafter, on his request applicant has reduced the bribe amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. On receiving this report, the Lokayukta Police gave a voice recorder to the complainant so that conversation made between the complainant and applicant can be recorded. After recording the conversation on the tape recorder, the complainant handed over the same to Lokayukta Police. Police made a trans-script of conversation held between the complainant and the applicant and after the applicant was caught red handed by receiving bribe amount from the complainant and after due investigation, Lokayukta Police filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Indore. During trial on 11/10/2017, the applicant has moved an application before the trial Court contending to expunge these documents, which are electronic record as mandatory provisions given under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence act are not complied with, however, on 17/11/2017, this application has been dismissed by the trial Court stating that at this stage the question of admissibility of the electronic record cannot be decided, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. He also submits that with the charge-sheet the prosecution has filed certain documents, which are electronic records, however, looking to the Section 65(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, electronic record would be admissible in evidence, only if the aforesaid record satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 65(B)(2) and contents a certificate as contemplated by Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. If these documents does not satisfy the conditions mentioned under Section 65(B)(2) or it does not having certificate as contemplated under Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, then it is not admissible. Thus, a certificate under Section 65(B)(4) has to be issued at the time computer output containing the information was produced. The evidence produced by the prosecution can be taken as evidence if it is fulfill the condition contemplated under Section 65(B)(4), otherwise it cannot be read as evidence against accused persons, however, in the present certificate filed by the prosecution not contains the information as required by Section 65(B)(4) and it is bare reproducing the Section. The trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that it will be considered at the time of stage of framing of charges, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supports the reasons adopted in the impugned order and submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with the petition.
6. The controversy has arisen whether the certificate under Section 65(B)(4) must be satisfied the condition described under Section 65(B) (2) of the Evidence Act. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge against the accused, the court is required to apply his judicial mind that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or not ? At this stage neither the admissibility of the documents nor defence version or materials or documents is required to consider. At the stage of framing of charge the sufficiency of material for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and even if there are material raising strong suspicion against an accused then charges can be framed. The admissibility of any electronic document cannot be questioned or considered at the initial stage, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant regarding non-compliance of provision stipulated under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. From the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby made clear that in the present case, the arguments raised above are in the nature of defence, which cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 , wherein following observation has been made as under :
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76)."
8. Thus, on the cumulative above facts and law laid down, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 439/2017 Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /05/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1379/2007x Indore dated :27/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report appellant-Bhagirath has failed to mark his presence on 07/11/2017. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Bhagirath for securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018.
List on 29/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 901/2008x Indore dated :27/04/2018 None for the parties.
Appellant has filed an application IA No. 2865/2018, for withdrawal of this appeal.
It is stated in the appeal that during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant and the respondent, who are the real brothers have entered into a compromise and both of them have settled all their disputes amicably and no point of difference exists between them, therefore, the appellant does not wish to press this appeal anymore.
Looking to the aforesaid reasons mention in the application, IA No. 2865/2018 is allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 137/2012x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No3. - Ramjilal before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 15/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 452/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to seek instruction in the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 73/2017x Indore dated :27/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
As per office report applicant-Rajunath has failed to mark his presence on 22/01/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against applicant-Rajunath for securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018.
List on 25/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1799/2017x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify the factum of death of appellant-Rodsingh and to file reply of IA Nos. 2964/2018 and 2965/2018.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3249/2018x (Prakash Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:27/04/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2856/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant -Prakash.
Appellant -Prakash has been found guilty for offence under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act and has sentenced to undergo 6 moths R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 32, 283/-.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Prakash.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2856/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and 30% of the civil liability and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Prakash in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/06/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 430/2018x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file the arabic translation of the petition.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission and IA No. 2450/2018, an application for stay of proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014, pending before the Family Court, Indore.
On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 2450/2018 by Ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
Till the next date of hearing, proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014, pending before the Family Court, Indore shall remain stayed.
List thereafter alongwith M.C.C. No. 727/2018. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 318/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 pays for and is granted 15 days time to produce respondent No.3-Kamlesh and respondent No..5-Lalitabai before this Court.
List on 16/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 325/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri M.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No. -Kapil before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 17/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 689/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 849/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 849/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Smt. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Kumwat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file appropriate application for withdrawal of the present appeal.
In the meanwhile Office is directed to call the bail papers of the appellant from the trial Court.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 767/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
None for the respondents.
Respondent No.2-Pankaj @ Billi is not present today, therefore, IA No. 7683/2017, an application for condonation of previous non- appearance before this Court is dismissed. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against respondent No.2-Pankaj @ Billi for securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018.
List on 04/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 873/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 947/2015 Indore dated :27/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report appellant-Ramchandra has failed to mark his presence on 21/09/2017. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ramchandra for securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018.
List on 29/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1115/2015x Indore dated : 27/04/2018 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent-Revaram is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2956/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of respondent on 26/03/2018 before the registry of this Court.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of respondent-Revaram on 26/03/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.2956/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of respondent-Revaram before the Registry this Court on 26/03/2018 is hereby condoned.
Respondent-Revaram is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on19/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1188/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1671/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1671/2015x Indore dated :27/04/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10290/2016, an application to release the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA No. 10290/2016.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 10290/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to move an appropriate application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Mukesh.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.742/2018 (Heeralal Vs.Laxminarayan & Ors.) Indore dated : 18/04/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
ORDER This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/02/2018 passed by 2nd Addtional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Cri.Appeal No.37/2017, whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 4 months S.I., and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
2. The prosecution story, applicant take credit from complainant/respondent No.1 of Rs.25,000/- & Rs. 3.0 Lacs for his personal use. Thereafter applicant issued two cheques in favour of the complainant, cheque No. 568610 of Rs.25,000/- dated 30/04/2008 and cheque No. 568609 of Rs.3.0 Lacs dated 31/05/2008 of State Bank of India, branch Sitamau, Distdrict-Mandsaur. These cheques were presented by the complainant for encashment in his bank account, however, the same were return unpaid on the ground of "insufficiency of funds". Threafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the applicant , which was received by him on 17/10/2018, however, he has not paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, complainant filed the private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the applicant before the Court Judicial Magistrate First Class, in which the Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties, convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I., and to pay compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, applicant has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was partly allowed and the sentence awared to the applicant has been reduced from 6 months S.I. to 4 months S.I., however, he is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6.0 Lacs. Hence, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of more than 2 months and he has no criminal past nor he is involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the applicant is established on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant-Laxminarayan (CW 1) and his witness Sanjay Jain (CW 2). Hence, on the basis of material available on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has already served approximately 2 months jail sentence, the sentence awarded is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him subject to deposit the compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, within a period of thirty days. In default of payment compensation amount, the applicant shall suffer one and half months additional S.I. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.
(S.K.Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 617/2017 Indore dated :27/02/x2018 Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : 26 /04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 15105/2018x Indore dated :25/04/2018 Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to file the documents regarding ownership of the Sanwariya Restaurant & Guest House, Indore Road, Ujjain.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2483/2018x Indore dated :25/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11629/2018 (Mohammad Toeed Khan Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 25/04/2018 Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/2018 registered at Police-Station-Dhar, District-Dhar, for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution story, on 25/01/2018, complainant-Dr. Rafiqe Sheikh lodged a complaint alleging that his servant Nazma Bi stolen Rs. 3.75 Lacs from his wardrobe. The allegation against the applicant is that he kept the stolen articles in his house.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. Neither he is named in the FIR nor he instigated the co-accused-Nazma Bi for committing theft of Rs.3.75 Lacs. The applicant is a reputated citizen of Dhar and his arrest would cause great hardship to him and will badly hampered his reputation. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. In such circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and he is requisred for interrogation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11907/2018x (Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 25/04/2018 Shri H.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 191/2016 registered at Police-Station-Pipaliya Mandi District-Mandsaur, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(2)(i), 344 and 506/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3/4 & 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as possible in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1270/2012 Indore dated : 25/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @ Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested by the Police on 22/10/2018 and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur.
Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x Indore dated :24/04/2018 Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13657/2018x (Madhopuri Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 24/04/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 42/2018 registered at Police-Station-Malawar District-Rajgarh (Biaora), for the offence punishable under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1884 read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as possible in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14459/2018 (Biharilal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 24/04/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 366/2017 registered at Police-Station-Machalpur District-Rajgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as possible in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.7360/2018 (Habeaus Corpus)x Indore dated :23/04/2018 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2-Sudhir Kumar Das, Inspector, Police-Station- Vijaynagar, Indore is prsent in person alongwith Cropus-Priyanka Vishwakarma.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 3/State.
Petitioner-Abhishek Rathore has filed this Habeaus Corpus for issuance of writ, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's wife-Priyanka Vishwakarma before this Court.
According to the petitioner the daughter of the respondent No.1 was deeply involved in love with the petitioner and they were major, therefore, they decided to marry each other and for the same the Corpus-Priyanka left her parental house to marry with the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and corpus-Priyanka was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Musakhedi, Indore on 23/10/2017. After that they were living together. On 18/03/2018, the respondent No.1 alongwith his daughters Kiran, Rekha, Rajni, son- in-laws Hariom, Ritesh, Rajesh and nephew Vishal called the petitioner and Priyanka to meet them in Meghdoot Garden, Vijay Nagar, Indore ensuring that they do not want any dispsute. Believing the respondent No.1 and his relatives, the petitioner alongwith his wife Priyanka reached Meghdoot Garden, Vijay Nagar, Indore at about 3:30-4:00 p.m., where all the aforesaid persons were present. After talking for some time, the petitioner was asked by respondent No.1 to bring drinking water bottle and carried away his wife- Priyanka without his consent. The respondent No.1 is illegally detained his wife without having any authority, therefore, he prays that the respondents were directed to produce his wife before this Court and she be handedover to his custody.
Vide order dated 05/04/2018, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were directed to produce the corpus on the next date of hearing. In compliance of this direction the corpus is produced by Sudhir Kumar Das, Inspector, Police-Station-Vijaynagar, Indore from the custody of her parents.
From the documents filed alongwith petition, it appears that the date of birth of the Corpus-Priyanka is 15/08/1997, hence she is major and this fact is also not disputed by any party. Corpus is present in person and stated that she wants to stay alongwith the petitioner. However, she has not made any allegation that her parents detained her forcefully. The corpus is attained the majority, therefore, she is free to go anywhere and stayed with either petitioner or her parents, thus, no direction for her custody by this Court is required.
In view of the statement made by the corpus before this Court during the course of hearing, in this writ petition (Habeaus Corpus) no further direction is required.
With the aforesaid this writ petition is stands disposed of.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.5467/2016 Indore dated :23/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
By order dated 22/02/2018, we requested the learned Chairperson and members of the Inspection Committee to spare their valuable time for inspection in terms of the order passed in Review Petition No. 1333/2017 and submit its report.
Report is awaited.
List after two weeks.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x (Pooja Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.Nos. 10799/2018, 13694/2018 & 13814/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10903/2018x (Dugaria Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, the trial Cout is directed to expedite the trial.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 11144/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11216/2018x (Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/C.B.N. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11312/2018x (Gopal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11317/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Ganesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report regarding ailment of the applicant.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 11329/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List after a week.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1764/2018x (Arvind PandeyVs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Pankaj R.Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 14171/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking correction in the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had earlier preferred a M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow the M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 vide order dated 02/04/2018, however, due to typographical error in the Crime Number and District, the petitioner could not be released.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed. It is directed that now the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 shall be read as under:-
In first para of the said order, the Crime No.70/2017 shall be read as Crime No. 701/2017.
In the second para in 11th line of the said order, "The applicant is a permanent resident of District-Indore" shall be read as "The applicant is a permanent resident of District-Sehore."
This order shall be read conjointly with order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be maintained in M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018 for record.
Cc as per rules.
(Virender Singh) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 1638/2017x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the resquest of the learned counsel for the appellant, list on 24/04/2018.
(Virender Singh) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No. 5464/2018 Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Jitendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard.
Issue notice.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State and therefore, no further notice is required.
Shri Deshmukh prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the reply in respect of Interim relief.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12/12/1996 and 02/03/1997, in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & Ors, the permission of Central Govt. under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is nceessary for cutting of trees. But in the present case, without taking any prior approval of the Central Govt. Under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the M.P. State Govt. issued notification dated 24/09/2015 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of the proviso to rule 3 of the M.P. Transit (Forest Produce Rules), 2000 and exempted private owners for pruning of some species of forest produce .
Considering the aforesaid, we direct the respondent No. 4 and Principal Secretaty, Forest Department Govt. of M.P. to examine the matter and grant permission for pruning of trees subject to the examination report of Principal Secretary and Chief Conservator of Forest and file their detail affidavit within 3 weeks.
List thereafter.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP Nos. 1399/2017 & 1401/2017x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
As the matter has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme Court, therefore, we adjourned the case.
List after summer vacation.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RP Nos. 595/2018, 597/2018, 599/2018 & 600/2018x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Bajpai for the review petitioners.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Orrisa Vs. Dhadi Sahu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 257 & Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anrs. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 219, para 24 & 25, we are inclined to issue notice.
Shri Patwa accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent/State , hence, no further notice is required.
Shri Patwa prays for and is granted one weeks time to seek instructions in the matter and file reply if necessary.
List immediately thereafter.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ITA Nos. 140/2016, 141/2016, 142/2016, 76/2017, 77/2017 & 78/2017 x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant list after two weeks.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 5365/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed IA No. 1812/2018, an application for amendment.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List thereafter.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20169/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Petitioner-Akash Chouhan is present in person. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Pleading is completed.
Office is directed to list the matter on the question of admission in the first week of July, 2018.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20593/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith WP No. 20605/2017.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20605/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and is granted 10 days time to file the reply of IA No. 17570/2017.
List thereafater alongwith WP No. 20593/2017.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ITA No. 89/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant list after a week.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WANo. 277/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission as well as on IA No. 1118/2018, an application for stay.
Shri L.C. Patne accepts the notice on behalf of respondent and he prays for and is granted 10 days time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 2900/2017x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent/EOW further four weeks' time is granted to file the reply List thereafter.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 2799/2016x Indore dated :20/04/2018 Shri S.D. Bohare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to19. Office is directed to verify that whether, against judgment dated 04/03/2015 passed in S.T. No. 238/2009, any other leave to appeal is filed or not ?
Detailed report be filed within a period of 10 days from today. List thereafter alongwith Cr.A. No. 436/2015.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 174/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 176/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 231/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 229/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 225/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 224/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 183/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 180/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 178/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has filed the rejoinder.
Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CONC. No. 195/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Smt. Ritu Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner list on 08/05/2018.
In the meanwhile counter, if any be filed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 509/2000
Indore dated :19/04/2018
Shri Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment (P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 589/2005 Indore dated :19/04/2018 Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment (P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No. 876/2018x (Yogendra Singh Vs. Ravindra ) Indore dated :18/04/2018 Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Heard.
This petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against judgment and order dated 25/03/2010 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No.245/2009, whereby, judgment dated 28/10/2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Ratlam in Criminal Case No.13/2009, convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') has been maintained.
02. The applicant on the basis of criminal complaint preferred by the respondent, were tried for an offence under Section 138 of 'the Act' with regard to dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it, found the applicant guilty and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I.. Apart from this the applicant was directed to pay Rs.48,000/- as compensation to the respondent under Section 357 of 'the Code'. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment, as stated above.
03. During the pendency of this revision, the applicnat entered into a compromise with respondent/complainant. In this regard, I.A. Nos. 1863/2018 & 1864/2018 was filed by the parties on 14/03/2018. The Principal Registrar, Bench on verification has found that the parties have entered into compromise without any fear or coercion as they have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences and want to live in peace and harmony and applicant has also deposited the 15% of the cheque amount as compound fees before the M.P. High Court, Legal Services Committee, Bench at Indore on 06/04/2018.
04. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and pray for compounding of the offence which is permissible under Section 147 of 'the Act', it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made in this regard.
05. Accordingly, this Court allow the parties to compound the offence and resultantly, set aside the judgments of the Courts below and acquit the applicant with regard to offence under Section 138 of 'the Act'. If the applicant is in custody, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
06. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned Court for information and compliance.
CC as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 1337/2018 Indore dated :03/04/2018 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.K. Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 14415/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated 14/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 14/02/2018 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 1072/2018 subject to deposition of Rs. 2.83 Lacs with interest to the bank within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, as per the statement of the bank the total amount due towards applicant is Rs.9,54,543/-. It is also submitted the applicant is a labour and he is not in a position to deposit the aforesaid amount. Under these circumstances, he prayed for modification in the impugned order.
Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 14/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018 is modified as under:
"The application filed by the applicant is allowed, subject to deposition of amount Rs. 4.0 Lacs to the Bank within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and upon submission of the receipt of the same before the trial Court, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C."
This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018. A copy of this order be placed in the record of M.Cr.C No.1072/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 321/2015x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1650/2017, an application for permanent exemption from personal appearance of appellants before this Registry.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are poor agriculturists and illiterate persons. They resides in interior village of District-Dhar, which is around 125 Kms., away from Indore. Now the crops are standing in their fields and there is no other male members in their family to look after the cattle and fields. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for permanent exemption from personal appearance of the appellants before the Registry of this Court.
Learne Public Prosecutor opposed the application. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, IA No. 1650/2017 is allowed and the appellants are permanently exempted from marking their presence before the Registry of this Court. The appellants are directed to mark their presence before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur District-Dhar on 25/04/2018 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 15/2015x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.1- Wahid is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another case.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.1-Wahid for securing his presence before this Court on 07/05/2018.
List on 07/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1838/2014x Indore dated :18/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi has return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given address.
Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi to secure his presence before this Court.
Superintendent of Police, Indore is directed to furnish the quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Jitendra Mukhi.
As per PUD No. 5, dated 29/01/2018 received from the Special Judge ( NDPS), Indore the recovery proceedings against surety of the appellant is going on and recovery warrant has been issued against him.
List on 19/07/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 369/2013x Indore dated :18/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report appellant-Jitendra has failed to mark his presence on 10/04/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- Jitendra for securing his presence before this Court on 20/06/2018.
List on 20/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 567/2012x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant -Munnalal @ Amarsingh before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 04/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 479/2010x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.2-Pankaj @ Pawan before this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List on 04/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 651/2015x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent. List alongwith Cr.R. No. 512/2015.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 512/2015x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file some necessary documents.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 7961/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Vishnu Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter, despite the fact that today the case is listed on the mention memo.
Prayer is allowed.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1116/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1666/2018, Ist application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Ajay.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1666/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1666/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14959/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri A.K. Nahar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for restoration of Cr.R.No.897/2018, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19/03/2018.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit,the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to depositing cost of Rs.500/- in the High Court Legal Services Committee, Indore. Cr.R. No. 897/2018 be restored to its original number.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No. 897/2018.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9524/2017x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 /State.
List in the week commencing 14/05/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 13941/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13941/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file response to the petition filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 14/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018x Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants. On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission alongwith IA No. 2534/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.651/2018 (Laxman Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 17/04/2018 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01/02/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Bioara) in Cri.Appeal No.412/2014, confirming the judgment dated 10/12/2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur, District-Rajgarh (Bioara) in Criminal Case No. 03/2014, by which the applicants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 452 IPC and 3 months RI. With fine of Rs.300/- under Section 323 of the IPC with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28/12/201, at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant was sweeping her courtyard then applicants came there and asked her why she is draining the water infront of their house. On this account they started to abuse her and assaulted her by kicks and fists. Thereafater applicant-Laxman caused her injury by pelting stones on her head. When complainant's sister-in-law- Kailash Bai interevened in the matter, then applicants fled away from the spot. After the incident, complainant-Gangabai lodged an FIR at Police Station-Machalpur and on that basis case was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294 and 506(II) IPC at Crime No. 191/2013. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Jeerapur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora).
3. After framing the charge and recording the evidence, the offences under Sections 452 & 323 IPC were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the applicants has alternatively submitted that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of approximately 2 & 1/2 months and they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of complainant-Gangabai (PW 1), Kailash Bai (PW 3), Santosh Bai (PW
4), Bapulal (PW 5) and Dr. R.S. Mathur (PW 6). Hence, considering the material available on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicants under Sections 452 & 323 of IPC.
7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants have already remained approximately 2 & 1/2 months in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.1200/-for the offence under Section 452 IPC, and Rs.700/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC, within a period of thirty days. Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.2000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and fifteen days RI respectively under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC.
With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.
(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
To Add in future-
7. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the respondent has much force as the perusal of the evidence establishes the occurrence of the incident and since the injuries were sustained by injured Lakhan, which included the injury on the head, the incident cannot be ignored. Further, the observation of the trial Court with respect to the testimony of the doctor cannot be found faulted with as the doctor's opinion is to be considered in the context of the statement of the complainant, which does not mean that the entire prosecution story is to be disbelieved because the incident has taken place in open surrounding and there were several witnesses to it. With regard to the contention that this matter is counter blast, suffice it to observe that the courts below have examined this aspect and the appellate Court has modified the judgment of sentence considering that the parties to the incident are resident of same village and are related.
8. It is anyways a trite position of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court of Appeal.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.733/2017 (Sukhdev & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 17/04/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5737/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 630 days in preferring this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are poor agriculturist and illiterate persons. At the time of pronouncement of judgment, the applicants were not present before the appellate Court, therefore, they were not having any knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal. When they asked about their next date from their counsel, then he informed them that the appeal of the applicants is decided in their favour and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is set-aside, therefore, they were in the impression that they are acquitted by the appellate Court. In the last week of May, 2017 they came to know that their appeal was dismissed when some police man come and inquired about the applicants . After that applicants inquired about the matter and got the certified copy of the judgments and then they preferred this revision. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for condonation of delay of 630 days in preferring this revision.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for condonation of delay by contending that the trial Court has convicted the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 ( 3 counts) and 324 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 1/2 years R.I., 2 1/2 years R.I. and 6 months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- respectively with usual default stipulation. The appellate Court although affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 3 months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs.150/- respectively for each offence. At the time of pronouncement of judgment, applicants were not deliberately present before the appellate Court and they filed an application for exemption of their non- appearance, which was rejcted by the appellate Court. Aftter that they have not surrender before the trial court and filed this revision petition before this Court on 19/06/2017, which is not maintainable. Apart from this the revision has been filed approximately 1 years and 7 months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court. The reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay are not bonafide, therefore, no sufficient ground is available to condone the delay.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the reasons given by the applicants for condonation of delay are vague and they have not filed any affidavit of their counsel, who wrongly informed them that the appeal preferred by them is decided in their favour and they are acquitted by the appellate Court, therefore, the reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition is not accepetable. In the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693, the apex Court has held that " If sufficient cause is not shown, delay should not be condoned." In the case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (3) MPLJ SCC 135, the supreme Court held that " The courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers in condonation of delay." In the present case dealy caused by the applicants due to mistake and negligence of their counsel. The reasons assigned for the condonation of delay is not found sufficient and satisfactory and it does not seems to be bonafide, therefore, delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.
The next question arises for consideration before this Court is whether this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicants have not surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would be tenable.
Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the language of provision 397 of the Cr.P.C. and order of Delhi High Court passed on 31/05/2017 in Cr.R. No. 299/2017 in the case of Manish Kumar Vs. The State GNCT of Delhi & Ors. and order of Madras High Court passed on 18/01/2016 in Cr.R. No. 588/2015 in the case of M. Senthilkumar Vs. P. Ramlingam submits that there is no provision or requirement under the Cr.P.C. which compells the accused to surrender before filing of Criminal Revision, therefore, present criminal revision is maintainable.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In the cases of Manish Kumar (supra) and M. Senthilkumar (supra), Delhi High Court and Madras High Court has held that under the provision of 397 of Cr.P.C. there is no such requirement that for granting of relief of suspension of sentence, the accused surrender and undergo confinement before filing of the Criminal Revision, unless High Courts have made such provisions in their respective rules.
From the perusal of aforesaid orders, it is evident that there is no requirement under the Cr.P.C. which makes it necessary for the accused to surrender after conviction before filing Criminal Revision, however, it is opined that if the High Court has made such provisions in their respective rules. As per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules 48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision against conviction is tenable only when applicants have given declaration to the effect that the applicants are in custody or have surrendered after the conviction.
In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this criminal revision dismissed as not maintainable as well as time barred.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on 05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya.
Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 56/2013x Indore dated :17/04/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 8(C)/15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lac for each offence with usual default stipulation. The appellants have already suffered more than 9 years of the jail sentence and he is ready to aruge the appeal on merits.
Office is directed to examine whether the appeal can be listed for final hearing out of its turn under the caption of "High Court Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases and proceed further.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on 05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya.
Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 705/2014x Indore dated :13/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per office report, the appellant-Prem Singh was absent on 12/03/2018 and it is a matter of bail jump.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Prem Singh, for securing his presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 303/2014x Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Joravarsingh @ Jorsingh is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another case.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Joravarsingh @ Jorsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/05/2018.
List on 02/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9373/2018x Indore dated : 13/04/2018 None for the applicant, when the case is called for second round.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vivek Nagar, learned counsel for the complainant /objector.
On earlier occasions on 28/03/2018 also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 236/2008 Indore dated :12/04/2018 Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6105/2006 Indore dated :12/04/2018 Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.190/2017x (Gaurav @ Goldy Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri A.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24682/2017, an application for withdrawal of appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore, he does not want to press this appeal.
On due consideration of the aforesaid IA No. 24682/2017 is allowed and accordingly, Cr.A. No. 190/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1463/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1481/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1465/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1471/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1473/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1474/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1480/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1464/2014 Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
List on 19/06/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1752/2014x Indore dated : 13/04/2018 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2509/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on 16/02/2018 before the registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was present before the Registry on 06/08/2017 but the incharge of Registry instead of marking the signature of the present applicant, had marked his presence on another file, therefore, he could not mark his presence on 16/02/2018 before this Court.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant-Vikas @ Rakh on 16/02/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.2509/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Vikas @ Rakh before this Court on 16/02/2018 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 09/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.109/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 22631/2017, an application for final hearing at motion stage.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that it is an admitted matter.
Office is directed to list the matter, under caption "High Court Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases, whichever is earlier.
Accordingly, IA No. 22631/2017 is disposed of.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7466/2018x (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.50/2018, Police Station-Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14313/2018x Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14310/2018x Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14098/2018 (Goverdhan Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/04/2018 Shri Manish Zharola, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.799/2017, Police Station-Industrial Area District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 394 and 216(A) of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the complainant before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1310/1997 Indore dated :26/02/2018 Shri Suhel Nisar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017 Indore dated :15/02/2018 Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person. Mrs. Mamta Shandilyaa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vinod Kumar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated : /04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 226/2012x Indore dated :11/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Neither the service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu is received nor concerning Superintendent of Police, District-Indore has filed any affidavit in compliance of order dated 18/01/2018.
Let direction be issued to the concerned Superintendent of Police that he shall collect the service report of the warrant issued against the appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu and produced it with a detailed affidavit before this Court as to why service could not be made effective and naratting all the steps taken by the concerned officials for service of non-bailable warrant, failing which he shall remain present before this Court on next date of hearing positively.
Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in Court for seeking the compliance of the aforesaid order.
Be listed on 11/05/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13887/2018x (Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.421/2017, Police Station- Industrial Area, Jaora, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(m) and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10734/2018x Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicnt prays for time to argue the matter on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today.
Prayer is allowed.
Be listed on 02/05/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13211/2018x Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri P.K. Bramhabhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter on 20/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13987/2018x Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make availble the case- diary by next date of hering positively.
Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1555/2016x Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial Court.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce Balestic Expert Report with regard to the pistol, which has been recovered at the instance of the applicant.
Be listed on 02/05/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.82/2017x (Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :11/04/2018 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5500/2017 Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 99/2013x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
As per office report appellant-Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh was failed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 26/03/2018.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 16/05/2018.
List on 16/05/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 771/2016x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1838/2016x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 624/2017x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1067/2017x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 3671/2017 Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office within one week from today, failing which this appeal shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 651/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let record of the trial court be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1938/2018 Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Today the matter is listed for consideration of IA No. 1595/2018, an application for exemption from filing affidavit in support of appeal and IA Nos. 1593/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act & 1594/2018, an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
On due consideration IA No. 1595/2018 is disposed of with a direction that the affidavit shall be produced by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12825/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is not available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13513/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13595/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1207/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 8203/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is not available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 390/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 26130/2017x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 3212/2018x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9062/2015x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the applicant.
Respondent-Ashok Dashora is present in person. Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1304/2014x Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates are abstaining from court work.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. List the matter after a week.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 419/2008 Indore dated :10/04/2018 None for the parties.
Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates are abstaining from court work.
In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. List the matter after three weeks.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 480/2017
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Raghav Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated :10/04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6677/2017 Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Saransh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Viraj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.
Arguments heard.
Reserved for orders.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Indore dated :10/04/2018 Order passed, signed and dated separately.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11633/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2488/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is not available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12747/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13022/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13290/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13466/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13468/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13492/2018x Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13596/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13604/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 13623/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is not available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10041/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10080/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10233/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10428/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is not available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11113/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11407/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11631/2018X Indore dated :09/04/2018 None for the parties.
Case-diary is available.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2480/2018x Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13114/2018x Indore dated :06/04/2018 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13261/2018x Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri Neelesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the matter.
Prayer is allowed.
Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13235/2018x (Satish Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.105/2018, Police Station- Hatpipaliya District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 354, 354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13277/2018x (Ravin @ Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :06/04/2018 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.45/2018, Police Station-Warla District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 354, 354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 621/2015x Indore dated : 04/04/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant- Devkaran is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.20316/2017, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on 13/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the illness, appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 13/10/2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant-Devkaran on 13/10/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 20316/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Devkaran before this Court on 13/10/2017 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Devkaran is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 06/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 841/2014x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Applicant- Bhagwan Singh is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24848/2017, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant on 07/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a driver by profession and on the aforesaid date he was out of station, therefore, he could not appear before the registry of this Court on 07/12/2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of applicant-Bhagwan Singh on 07/12/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 24848/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of applicant- Bhagwan Singh before this Court on 07/12/2017 is hereby condoned.
Applicant-Bhagwan Singh is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 10/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1946/2014x Indore dated : 04/04/2018 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant- Shahrukh is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24092/2017, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on 03/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to illness, appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 03/10/2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant-Shahrukh on 03/10/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 24092/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Shahrukh before this Court on 03/10/2017 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Shahrukh is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 11/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 941/2014x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant- Lalit is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.695/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on 23/01/2018 before the registry of this Court.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant-Lalit on 23/01/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 695/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Lalit before this Court on 23/01/2018 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Lalit is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 09/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1333/2016 Indore dated : 04/04/2018 Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2362/2018, an application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on 11/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the accident appellant's left leg was fractured, therefore, he could not appear before the registry of this Court on 11/12/2017.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the previous non-appearance of appellant No.2-Jitendra Bhilala on 11/12/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 2362/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala before this Court on 11/12/2017 is hereby condoned.
Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 05/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.585/2017x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018
None for the applicant, when the case is called for second round.
None for the respondents.
On earlier occasions on 27/02/2018 and 19/12/2017 also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.876/2018x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to deposit compounding fees before the trial Court and file its receipt before this Court.
List on 06/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1354/2006x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the partis on IA No. 22674/2017, an application for grant of permission for renewal of passport.
The facts of the case are that the sole respondent has been acquitted vide judgment dated 26/09/2005 for offence under Sections 6(1)(a) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Indian Wireless Act, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 86/2004. Against the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the daughter of the respondent is suffering from cancer and the passport No. E 7063637 of the respondent was valid upto 12/01/2016. He has further submitted that his daughter is required to be treated in United States of America, therefore, permission be granted to renew his passport.
Learned Govt. Advocate has no serious objection in allowing the application.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstnaces of the case, IA No. 22674/2017 is allowed and the respondent namely' Devendra S/o Rajmal Jain is permitted to take appropriate steps for renewal of his passport. Pendency of this appeal will not come in the way of the respondent, so far as renewal of the passport is concerned.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10178/2018x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file the legible copy of the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by next date of hearing positively.
List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11933/2018x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11954/2018x (Ranjeet Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.676/2017, Police Station-Aerodrum District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 10853/2018x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list on 06/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 463/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, list alongwith Cr.R. No. 681/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.635/2017x (Mallu @ Molu @ Suresh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 843/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Brijesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List on 25/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1005/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.
List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 903/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent. List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1005/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1084/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 None for the applicants.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after 8 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1089/2017x Indore dated :04/04/2018 None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after 8 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7232/2018x (Manoj Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :04/04/2018 Shri D. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.18/2015, Police Station- Dindayal Nagar District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.143/2017x (Sanjay @ Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1943/2018-repeat (third) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.
Appellant No.1-Sanjay has been found guilty for offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(1B) of the Arms Act and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. & 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is alleged that the appellant gave a blow of sword on the hand of the Jitendra, however from the testimony of Mukesh Shrivastava (P.W. 14) and Dr. Ankur Maheshwari (P.W. 15), it appears that no bony injury was found on the person of Jitendra. As per prosecution case co-accused Mohanlal gave an axe blow on the injured Hari Singh but he caught the axe, due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand. As per the statement of Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava (PW 14) dislocation of left middle finger of Hari Singh (injurred) has been found, however, the jail sentence of the co-accused-Mohanlal has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 07/04/2017. There is nothing on record to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant No.1- Sanjay to the injured persons is found to be grievous in nature. The appellant has already suffered more than 1 years of the jail sentence. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1943/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellant No.1-Sanjay in the sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.890/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1294/2018, Ist application filed under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Jeevan.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1294/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1294/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. List in the week commencing on 30/04/2018 for final hearing at motion stage.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.877/2017x (Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1915/2018, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for temporary suspension of custodial sentence of appellant Surendra.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 352, 307 (on two counts) of the IPC read with Sections 25(1B)(B), 27(2) of the Arms Act and has been respectively, sentenced to undergo 3 month R.I., 7 years R.I. (two counts) and 1 years R.I. (two counts) and to pay with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted to him has not misused by him. He further submits that the marriage of his daughter Sapna Kunwar is scheduled to be held on 18/04/2018 and being a father of the Sapna, the presence of the appellant is required to perform certain rituals.
This Court vide order dated 09/01/2018 has directed to verify the factum of the marriage of the appellant's daughter. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed the verification report received from the SHO Police-Station-Kalukheda District-Ratlam and submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the appellant is fixed for 18/04/2018.
After taking into facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant belongs to Hindu religion and his daughters' marriage is going to be solmenized on 18/04/2018 and in order to perform certain customary rites and rituals his presence is necessary.
In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to temporarily suspended the custodial sentence imposed against the appellant for a period of 9 days.
Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1915/2018 is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond and surety bond, each in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five thousand Only), by the appellant - Surendra Singh, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court he shall be released on bail temporarily from 14/04/2018 to 22/04/2018, subject to the condition that he shall surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on 23th April, 2018 for being taken into custody and sent to jail to suffer the remaining sentence.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12606/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri L. Sethia, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1284/2016x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1320/2016.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1320/2016x Indore dated : 02/04/2018 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant- Jaamsingh is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.1518/2018, an application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 08/01/2018 before the registry of this Court and change of date of appearance before the Registry of this Court.
Applicant submits that he has met with an accident and he is bed ridden, therefore, he is not in a position to travel at Indore, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 09/11/2017. Thereafter, he also moved an application for change of date, however, same application was considered and the next date was given on 08/01/2018. However, on the said date also he was in bed ridden, therefore, he could not able to mark his presence.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non-appearance of applicant-Jaamsingh on 08/01/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.1518/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of applicant- Jaamsingh before this Court on 08/01/2018 is hereby condoned.
Applicant- Jaamsingh is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11304/2016x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri A.Guru, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 656/2017x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 798/2017x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 22/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 4206/2017x Indore dated :02/04/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after 8 weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.6936/2017x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri A.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri P.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into compromise, however, they could not produced the compromise application before this Court, therefore, he prays for time.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that learned counsel for the applicants is not complied with the direction issued by this Court on 16/03/2018.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will comply the order during the course of the day.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.974/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri J.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Trial Court record is available. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue on IA No. 1444/2018, an application under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Heerasingh.
Pryaer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2515/2018x (Ganesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2130/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Ganesh.
Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2130/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellant-Ganesh in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.56/2013x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply of IA No. 1436/2018, repeat (sixth) application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant No.1-Parmanand.
By way of last opportunity time is granted. List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.839/2013x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.577/2017x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant- Mayur.
By way of last opportunity time is granted. List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.340/2014x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri K.P. Pande with Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 1371/2018, 6 th application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1371/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1371/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.50/2015x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply of IA No. 4555/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant- Indresh.
By way of last opportunity time is granted. List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.426/2016x Indore dated :02/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.672/2016x Indore dated :02/04/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1830/2016x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Sandeep Rajoria, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to argue on IA No. 1004/2018, third application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant- Saddam.
Pryaer is allowed.
List in tdhe week commencing 23/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x (Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.239/2017, Police Station-Jharda District- Ujjain concerning offence under Sections 307, 447, 341, 294,506, 323 and 325/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x (Kadvi Bai Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (fourth)) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.73/2016, Police Station- Balwada District- Khargone concerning offence under Sections 302 and 307/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x Indore dated :02/04/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to complied with order dated 07/03/2018.
By way of indulgence one week's time is granted. List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.628/2013x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith Cr.R. No. 347/2013.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.347/2013x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Perused the PUD dated 04/01/2018, received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. In PUD prayer has been made for transmission of record of Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 (Dr. Nalini Jhaveri Vs. Kishore Parikh).
Aforesaid record of the Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 had already been sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore by this Registry vide dispatch No. RD-436 dated 03/03/2014.
Let necessary information be sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in this regard.
With the aforesaid PUD stands disposed of. List the revision for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.R. No. 628/2013.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1499/2016x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 &
4. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the certified copy of the charge-sheet.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1062/2017x Indore dated :28/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per Office report, applicant-Sudhir could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 20/03/2018.
Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant- Sudhir for securing his presence before this Court on 30/04/2018.
List on 30/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3886/2017x Indore dated :28/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.686/2010x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per the report received from the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, appellant has suffered the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.651/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be called for. List immediately after received of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27503/2017x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available by case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
IR to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1221/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.689/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2096/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be called for. List immediately after received of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5204/2017 (Ram @ Smackchi Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/03/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.22553/2017- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Ram @ Smackchi.
The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized article has been conducted during the course of investigation. Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.22553/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Ram @ Smackchi in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6284/2017 (Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:28/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1616/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam.
The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized article has been conducted during the course of investigation. Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1616/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1452/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri M. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue on IA No. 1145/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant No.1-Bharatsingh.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018 Indore dated :18/04/2018 Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants. On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission alongwith IA No. 1934/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1388/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission . Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2086/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri K.K. Bundela, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2097/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2421/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2421/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the court below be called for. List immediately after received of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2545/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the court below be called for. List immediately after received of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11441/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positvely.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11585/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12275/2018x Indore dated :28/03/2018 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission alongwith IA No. 2129/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4685/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the respondent, though duly served. Heard learned counsel for the applicants on IA No. 2107/2018, an application for condonation of delay of 1 days in serving the humdast notice to the respondent.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.2107/2018 is allowed and delay of 01 days in serving the humdast notice to the respondent is hereby condoned.
List after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5901/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6331/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as registered AD. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Till the next date of hearing, no correcive action shall be taken against the applicant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8520/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 None for the parties.
In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8871/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondenet No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four weeks' time to argue the matter.
List therafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8889/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four weeks' time to argue the matter.
List therafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22156/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23036/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Sandeep Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile record of the court below be called for. List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23324/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23465/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Pourush Raka, learned counsel for the applicant. Notice issued against respondent No.1 return unserved. On payment of fresh process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23821/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23989/2017x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11739/2018x (Amrita Bai Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.06/2018, Police Station-Bercha District- Shajapur concerning offence under Sections 363 and 364(A)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11631/2018x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10428/2018x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11907/2018x Indore dated :27/03/2018 Shri N.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5799/2018x Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed on record.
List on 27/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5785/2018 Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed on record.
List on 27/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 2078/2018x Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Abhishek Tugnagwat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed IA No. 1972/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay .
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 alongwith notice of IA No. 1972/2018.
List in the week commening 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1324/2018x Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 7502/2018x Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Ratnesh R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to call report from the concerned SHO that what steps he has taken to produce the prosecutrix before the trial Court for recording her statement in the light of Section 35(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4797/2018x (Pappu Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.468/2016, Police Station-Badnawar District- Dhar concerning offence under Sections 376, 506 of the IPC read with Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this third application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4770/2018x (Manjit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :26/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN. Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 1/2017, Police Station-CBN, Mandsaur District- Mandsaur concerning offence under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 71/2018 Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 5000/2017x Indore dated :23/03/2018 Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 21856/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's father is old and sick person aged about 62 years and the appellant is in custody, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of delay.
Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 21856/2017 is allowed and delay of 300 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court be called for. List the appeal immediately after receipt of the record for consideration of IA No. 1918/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Sodan Singh.
(S. K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2267/2018x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.617/2016x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks for consideration of IA No. 182/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Lakhan Singh.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.6098/2018x Indore dated :23/03/2018 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply of IA No. 1950/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Salam.
List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.511/2018x Indore dated :23/03/2018 Shri Gyanendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks time to argue on IA No. 377/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ganpatlal Kumawat.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1166/2018x Indore dated :23/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List after two weeks alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 10790/2018 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8179/2017x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. 8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and 8210/2017 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8211/2017x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. 8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and 8210/2017 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3771/2018x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.468/2017x Indore dated :23/03/2018 None for the applicants.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after six weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.964/2017x (Irfan & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :23/03/2018 Shri Pankaj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicants does not wish to press this criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4311/2018x (State of M.P. vs. Manoj) Indore dated :23/03/2018 Smt. Archana Kher, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
None for the respondent.y ORDER The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Additional 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No. 302/2012, whereby the respondent-
Manoj has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-Lalchand filed a private complaint against the respondent on the ground that on 25/05/2010, he purchased a motorcycle from one Bhaiyyu S/o Sadat Ali bearing registration No. MP-09-MS-4721 and an agreement was executed to this effect. Under the agreement parties were agreed that the complainant-Lalchand will use the motorcycle and if he found in defect in it, then transaction shall be cancelled.
Complainant-Lalchand has handedover a cheque of Rs.40,000/- as a surety and it was also agreed that if the complainant found the vehicle in good condition then Bhaiyyu will entitled to encash the aforesaid cheque. After using the motorcycle for a period of one month the complainant cancelled the agreement and return back the motorcycle to the Bhaiyyu. When the complainant demanded the aforesaid cheque then Bhaiyyu did not return the him the cheque. On 11/07/2011, complainant-Lalchand received a notice from the Advocate of respondent-Manoj, in which, it was stated that the cheque No. 3526720 was issued by him to the respondent towards financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/-.
When the cheque was presented for encashment the same were dishonoured for "insufficiency of funds", thereafter, respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against complainant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar District-Dhar and on the basis of the above complaint the Court has taken the cognizance against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Then complainant filed a written complaint against the respondent at Police-Station-Badnawar regarding cheating and forgery, however, police has not taken any action in the aforesaid report. Thereafter, complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar. After receiving the report, the statement of the complainant-Lalchand and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar registered the complaint against the respondent for commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC. The offence registered against the respondent was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar.
3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire record by the impugned judgment held that the prosecution has failed to proved that the cheque issued by the complainant-Lalchand was forged by the respondent-Manoj.
4. learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-Lalchand as well the documentary evidence available on record and acquigtted the respondent. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
6. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant and the material available on record, does not found prove that the complainant has issued cheque in pursuance to the agreement for sale of motorcycle in favour of the Bhaiyyu and he handed over the same cheque to the respondent, who misused the same and presented with the bankers for encashment. From the perusal of record, it appears that the dispute is of a civil nature and to given a cloak of criminal offence this complaint has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears to be just and reasonable. No perversity is apparent in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court
7. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (S. K. Awasthi) Chief Justice Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24615/2017x Indore dated :19/02/2018 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 596/2017 at Police Station Barwah, District-Khargone for offences punsihable under Section 354(d) of the IPC; Section 67(a) of the I.T. Act; Sections 11(4), 12 & 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Sections 3(2)(vii) 3 (2)(5)(k) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
From the perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that neither the copy of FIR has been filed nor the case-diary is available, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the FIR. Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is directed to make available the case-diary be next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Appeal No.418/2014x (State of M.P. & ors. vs. Dushyant Pagare) Indore dated :22/03/2018 Shri Mukesh Porwal, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State. None for the respondent.
ORDER Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 04/03/2014 in writ petition No. 12598/2013, whereby transfer of the writ petitioner vide order dated 04/10/2013 was set aside.
In an appeal against the order of setting aside the transfer, this Court passed an order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16/04/2014. An application for vacation of stay was dismissed on 09/05/2014.
The respondent has filed an application IA No. 4989/2017 pointing out that the writ petitioner has been now transferred from Barwani to Shahdol on 10/07/2017 and the writ appeal has become infructuous.
In view of the fact that transfer of the writ petitioner to Barwani, which was set aside by the learned Single Bench was stayed and subsequently, the writ petitioner has been transferred to Shahdol, we do not find that any cause in the present writ appeal survives.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(Hemant Gupta) (S. K. Awasthi)
Chief Justice Judge
skt
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1030/2014
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri S.K. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1057/2014.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1057/2014x (Azad Shah Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1832/2018- repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Azad Shah.
The appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 379 & 379/34 of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence.
First application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant-Azad Shah has been allowed by this Court, vide order dated 31/07/2014 subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 08/12/2014 and on all such future dates as may be fixed in that behalf during the pendency of this appeal. But appellant could not furnish the bail bond before the trial Court, therefore, he filed an IA No. 9/2015, an application for extension of time to furnish bail bond, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/02/2015 and the appellant is directed to furnish the bail bond in the line of the order dated 31/08/2014 and shall remain present in the Registry on 28/04/2015 and on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf. Thereafter, appellant regularly appear before this Court for his appearance. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant was absent on 16/03/2017. Thus this Court, vide order dated 16/05/2017 directed to issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant. Thereafter, on 07/11/2017, it was informed that the appellant is detained in Central Jail, Bherugarh in some other case, therefore, production warrant was issued against him and in pursuance of aforesaid production warrant the appellant was produced before this Court on 13/12/2017 and since then he is in custody.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was detained in jail since 12/03/2017 in some other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before this Court on 16/03/2017 and he ensure that in future appellant shall regularly appear before the registry of this Court on all dates as may be given in this behalf. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Azad Shah in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2097/2018x (Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1873/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants-Kamlesh & Kailash.
Each of the appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellants cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by them may render infructuous. The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1873/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellants-Kamlesh and Kailash in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2085/2018x (Sangram Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the court below be called for. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1748/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Sangram.
The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 451, 354(A) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I., 6 months R.I. and 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1748/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Sangram in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10711/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10229/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List on 28/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9899/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10184/2018x (Kaju Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10220/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10891/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time to file written objection on the bail application.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10892/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10896/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10908/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10975/2018 (Arjun Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11009/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017 Indore dated :21/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4774/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List on 28/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5235/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9875/2018x (Raju @ Rajesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri K.C. Waghela, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.926/2016x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.617/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1860/2018, an application for amendment in the array of IA No. 460/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.
On due consideration IA No. 1860/2018 is allowed. Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the IA No. 460/2018 during the course of the day.
List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1797/2018x Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2197/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2197/2018x Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the Court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.611/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directced to file the copy of the entire charge-sheet.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1584/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter in the week commencing 02/04/2018 alongwith Cr.A. No. 1463/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3173/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue on the maintainability of the revision.
List after a week .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3286/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the entire charge-sheet.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3344/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4206/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the partis prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5090/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the respondent.
At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5567/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M.K. Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6692/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Let record of the Court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6689/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Let record of the Court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10332/2018x (Gulab Kapoor Vs. Shilpa) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court, which are alleged in the present petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10818/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10856/2018x (Sitarasingh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26580/2017x (Rajendra @ Bacha Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6108/2018x (Sheru Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7586/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to file FSL report with regard to liquor seized from the possession of the applicant.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed. List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8027/2018x (Champalal Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8418/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9752/2018x (Shekhar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1213/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9933/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10754/2018x (Nandlkishore Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1313/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1872/2018, an application for grant of temporary bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop Dangi.
At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1872/2018.
Pryaer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1872/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. List the matter after three weeks for consideration of IA No. 6821/2017, an application 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.185/2011x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1353/2016x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the parties.
In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.803/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicants are directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.897/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1022/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the parties.
In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1161/2018 x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1169/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1938/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9365/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 691/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing postively.
List on 04/04/2018 .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 639/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Ranjeet Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing postively.
List on 04/04/2018 .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11331/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on 04/04/2018 (S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 163/2016x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on 04/04/2018 (S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.363/2018x (Joy Bamiya Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Jil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if the applicant is moved fresh application by showing change of circumstances before the Juvenile Justice Board, then same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1199/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Respondent No.1- Vaishali Raipuriya is present in person before this Court.
Shri Hemant, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 /State.
This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 08/03/2018 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani District- Barwani in Criminal Appeal No.101/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwani, District Barwani in Criminal Case No. 01/2016, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.
Heard on I.A. No.1811/2018, an application under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the applicant-Rajkumar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent No.1/complainant-Vaishali Raipuriya on 12/03/2018 and she has sworned the affidavit in this regard. It is further submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There is no possibility of the revision coming up for final hearing in near future and hence, the applicant may be benefited by suspension of sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for rejection of the application.
Respondent No.1/complainant submits that she has no objection if the application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant is allowed.
In view of the above, awaiting admission, this Court is of the opinion that the application I.A.No.1811/2018 deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition and he shall be released on bail subject to depositing compensation amount and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 18.5.2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
List the revision on the question of admission after four weeks. Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.756/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing alongwith report of Probation Officer, failing which the concerned Official shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary and report.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3142/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1820/2018, an application under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Wasim.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1820/2018.
Pryaer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 1820/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1802/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reply of IA No. 9085/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day.
List on 21/03/2018 for consideration of IA No. 9085/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 115/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5468/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the reply of IA No. 1819/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant-Shyamlal @ Shyam.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3764/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Puyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24732/2017, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Prashant Soni.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 24732/2017.
Pryaer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 24732/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1197/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to file appropriate application for amendment in the aray of IA No. 1806/2018.
List after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2042/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10790/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today due to some personal difficulties.
Prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6710/2018x (Firoz & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Mrs. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary of Crime Nos. 239/2017 and 240/2017 registered at Police- Station-Jharda, District-Ujjain by next date of hearing positively, failing which concerned SHO shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7330/2018x (Ballabh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7584/2018x (Mahendra Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this fourth bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7669/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In the present cae the applicants/accused persons are in jail since 11/02/2017. However, from the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court, it appears that accused persons are not being produced before the Court from the jail on the dates of hearing.
Let report be called from the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar that what efforts have been made to secure the presence of the accused persons from the jail and ensure the presence of prosecution witnesses.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7685/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Apurv Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to comply with order dated 07/03/2018.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7804/2018x (Fatehsingh @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as not pressed.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.795/2016x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to argue on IA No. 1067/2018.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 811/2016 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1343/2016 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 583/2017 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1758/2017 (Heeralal @ Heeru Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8904/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Heeralal @ Heeru for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.8904/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7649/2018x (Pappu @ Akash Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Mrs. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8094/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Let health report of the applicant be called from the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhopal.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8883/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8980/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9054/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9157/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9305/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5394/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1620/2018, an application for converting the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. into Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
On due consideration IA No. 1620/2018 is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to make out necessary corrections in the cause title within 3 working days.
Office is directed to register this M.Cr.C. into Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 5394/2018 stands disposed of.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10301/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri V.K. Markan, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to produce complainant before this Court and for filed his affidavit.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8732/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10233/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10239/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9176/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to correct the Crime No. in memo of petition.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time file necessary documents.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10289/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10302/2018x (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10346/2018x (Praveen Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the material prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10383/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10393/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10424/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10437/2018 Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10457/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9996/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9380/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ankit Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
Let record of the Court below be called for. List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2053/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Let record of the Court below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 689/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be called for. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10043/2018x (Shekhar Vs. Smt. Amita & Ors) Indore dated : 13/03/2018 Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard.
The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 27/02/2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. 423/2015, whereby his right to produce evidence has been closed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent has filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for enhancement of maintenance amount. The case is pending for enquiry of the said application, wherein respondents alleged that the applicant is involved in the business of laundry and by this he is getting sufficient amount. Whereas the applicant contended that he is in private job and he is earning only Rs.4,500/-per month and he is not having any laundry business. To substantiate the fact that at present he is not conducting any business of laundry, he wanted to produce the evidence of Officer In-charge of License Branch, Municipal Corporation Indore. However, he did not turn up even after the service of notice, therefore, a bailable warrant was issued against him for securing his presence. But despite of issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear in the Court. The aforesaid witness is working in Semi Govt. Body, therefore, the applicant is unable to bring him and produce before the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27/02/2018 the case was fixed for recording the evidence of aforesaid witness, but due to oversight, he could not pay the process-fee, therefore, on the aforesaid date, the witness was not present and due to his single default, the trial Court has closed his right to produce the evidence and fixed the matter for final arguments. Due to this he has been deprived to produce his evidence. The impugned order is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and directing the trial Court to give him one opportunity to produce his evidence.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and this petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court shall provide the applicant an opportunity to produce the aforesaid witness.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6640/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6577/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6348/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5537/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the parties.
In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6339/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6627/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8465/2018x (Vinod Bargunda Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the injured-Jyoti before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.839/2013x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.577/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Mayur, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5821/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.386/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.905/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5970/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28430/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri S. Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for two weeks' time to file the certified copy of the prosecutrix statement recorded before the trial Court.
By way of last indulgence the prayer is allowed. List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25705/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Let current status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial Court.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9956/2018x (Narsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10707/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1460/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the criminal antecedents of the applicant from the concerning S.P. of Shivpuri and Guna.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5300/2018x (Anil Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4278/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9047/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the applicants, even in the second round. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Earlier also on 16/08/2017 and 24/07/2017, no one appeared on behalf of the applicants, which shows that the applicants are no longer interested in prosecuting this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1287/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1560/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 483/2011x Indore dated : 13/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Asharam is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 963/2018, an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on 13/09/2017 before the registry of this Court.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- appearance of appellant-Asharam on 13/09/2017 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.963/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Asharam before this Court on 13/09/2017 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Asharam is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 19/04/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.706/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3393/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1154/2018, an application for amendment in the array of applicant's name.
On due consideration IA No. 1154/2018 is allowed. Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the memo of petition within three working days.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3610/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1372/2018, an application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter.
On due consideration IA No. 1372/2018 is allowed. Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the memo of petition within three working days.
Thereafter, on payment of process-fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.806/2015x (Charan Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19170/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Charan for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.19170/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . List the appeal for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.A. No. 757/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.757/2015x (Bhura Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 25555/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Bhura Gurjar for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.25555/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . List alongwith Cr.A. No. 806/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.322/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
List after four weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 194/2016 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.194/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 2206/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Sanju @ Sanjay, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.339/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 732/2018, an application under Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. for change of counsel.
On due consideration, IA No. 732/2018 is allowed. Shri Shailendra Mishra and his associates are permitted to represent appellant-Barka.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Shailendra Mishra & his associates in the cause-list on behalf of appellant-Barka.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1053/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.488/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 1468/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Sunil Borasi, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.808/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 4224/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Bhimji, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.955/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 4147/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Mangal Rathore, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 1705/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 5669/2017 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 5669/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 162/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 162/2018 is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
List the appeal after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1705/2017 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4388/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 23924/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Ramsingh @ Rama, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5313/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5678/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.324/2018x (RajaramVs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 237/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant-Rajaram for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 237/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8224/2018x (Om Shanti Gas Agency Vs. Neeraj Sethiya) Indore dated : 12/03/2018 Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashment of order dated 30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur in Criminal Case R.T. No. 216/2017, by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of documents has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. For seeking bank statement of the complainant for last five years from the date of filing of this complaint, bank pass book, income tax return details from 2013 to 2017 and agreement (if made between the parties) for lending the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- to the applicant. But the aforesaid application was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the respondent has stated that he has already filed all the documents relation to the transaction and now he has not having any document as desired by the applicant.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant perused the record.
The apex Court held in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 and P. Venugopal Vs. Madan P. Sarathi, AIR 2009 SC 568, that intial burden was on the complainant to prove existence of debt and the presumptions provided under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not extended to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharged of any debt or liability, which is required to be proved by the complainant.
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, this Court has not find any substance in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine at the motion stage.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7029/2018 Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7340/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8150/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8756/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8759/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8760/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8908/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the entire copy of charge-sheet.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8935/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Ms. Indu Rajguru, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9017/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9025/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9128/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9164/2018x (Swapnadeep Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew after filing of the charge-sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1065/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9857/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks. .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1412/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 4.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks. .
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1464/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, though duly served. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12845/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List after after a week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.419/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition has become rendered infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3560/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10266/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.816/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 4817/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5323/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 476/2016 Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List the matter in the week commencing 26th of March, 2018. I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 826/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.569/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Prasanna R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the trial Court is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before passing any final order.
Certified copy today.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 7319/2018 (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated : 12/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length, on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as possible in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6615/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.
List after one week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9433/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4479/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1790/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1088/2015x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri R.K. Batham, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Shyamlal Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent. At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 1648/2018x Indore dated :21/02/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1438/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 422 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 1438/2018 is allowed and delay of 422 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 1414/2016 for analogous hearing.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1197/2015x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent.
As per mediation report, parties are not interested for compromise. List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.775/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Office is directed to examine the matter and list before appropriate Bench.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2035/2017x (Vishal Vs. Ku. Anjali & Ors.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikas Meena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9188/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defects pointed out by the Office.
Office is directed to examine and proceed further.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3063/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri N. L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.949/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.974/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.466/2018x (Anil Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 677/2018, an application filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant-Anil for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No. 677/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn . Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.828/2018x (Raja Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:09/03/2018 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.650/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Raja Mankar.
The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 450, 376(1) and 506(II) of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.; 7 years R.I. And 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady and as per MLC report no internal or external injuries were found on her body. From the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband, it reveals that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 650/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Raja Mankar in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1438/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7357/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7695/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8279/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 on admission and IA No. 1416/2018, an application for staying the proceedings of the trial Court by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.847/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 10 days time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.966/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the appellant. On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1755/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned. List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8139/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List after three weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9215/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks time to move an appropriate application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9313/2018x (Mahesh @ Antim Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9243/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9211/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24944/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to argue the matter.
Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3256/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to argue the matter.
Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6116/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the copy of order-sheets of the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7013/2018x (Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri S.K. Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1024/2017 Indore, dated :07/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the order dated 24/09/2016 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, Neemuch District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 25/2012, whereby charges for offence under Sections 8/18(B) read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Kanhaiyalal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8460/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an illiterate person and there is no male member in his family, who can contact the lawyer at Indore. Therefore, his cousin brother approached the lawyer at Indore and after taking certified copy of the proceedings and charges, filed this criminal revision against the impugned order. Affidavit has also been filed in support of this application.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
From the perusal of revision petition, it appears that the applicant Kanhaiyalal, himself is a male member of aged about 36 years, therefore, it cannot be said that due to non-availability of male family members in his family, he could not contact his lawyer at Indore. Neither the applicant has disclosed name of his cousin brother in the application nor any affidavit of him has been filed in support of the contents made in the application.
Under these circumstances, the applicant has failed to make out sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 8460/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby dismissed as time barred.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27487/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
Be listed after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.876/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts' below be called for. On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2247/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to file the copy of all relevant order-sheets of the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25888/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 None for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office within 10 days from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No. 1693/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 733/2017x Indore dated : 05/03/2018 Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA No. 7263/2017, an application for substituting the new address and request to summon the non-applicant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant preferred M.Cr.C. No. 3380/2017 for leave to appeal, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/04/2017 and office is directed to register the matter as regular criminal appeal. But there was no mentioned in the order with regard to issuance of summon or warrant against the non-applicant for securing his presence before this Court.
On due consideration I.No. 7263/2017 is allowed. Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against non-applicant-Kamal Bharti S/o Ram Bharti Goswami, 656-B, Scheme No. 71, Gumasta Nagar, Sudama Nagar Post Office-452009, Indore for securing his presence before this Court on 25/04/2018.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 683/2006x Indore dated : 05/03/2018 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Mahesh @ Docotor is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1123/2018, an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on 26/09/2017 before the registry of this Court.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- appearance of appellant-Mahesh @ Doctor on 20/02/2018 before this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.1123/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor before this Court on 26/09/2017 is hereby condoned.
Appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 27/06/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1124/2018, an application for recalling of bailable warrant issued in compliance of order dated 07/12/2017.
On due consideration, IA No. 1124/2018 is allowed and bailable warrant issued against appellant, vide order dated 07/12/2017 is hereby recalled.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course. (S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1779/2018x (Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:05/03/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the Court below be called for. Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1456/20188- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore.
Each of the appellants has been found guilty for offenence under Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I.; 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each offence with usual default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the jail sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Though the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, this Court, after carefully going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1456/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 14/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
List in due course.
(S.K. Awasthi) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7211/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7208/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1688/2018x (Chiku @ Pratik Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4037/2018x (Lokendra Panwar Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1703/2018x (Santosh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1750/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to comply with order dated 19/02/2018.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4269/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4374/2018x (Jasvant Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4562/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicants further prays for time to argue the matter.
By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed. Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5168/2018x (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the complainant/objecor. After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8323/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to call CFSL report of Hyderabad.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8400/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays and is granted time to file the certified copies of order-sheets dated 12/02/2018 passed by the trial Court.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8403/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of report lodged by accused person Crime No. 42/2018 has been registered against the complainant party at Police-Station-Tal, District-Ratlam of offence under Sections 323, 295 and 506/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary of present Crime alongwith the case-diary of Crime No. 42/2018 by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8410/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8419/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8463/2018x (Husain Vs. State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Lokesh R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8467/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file some relevant documents.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8472/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and he prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8475/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8483/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri D.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8499/2018 Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 26/03/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. No.473/2018 Indore dated :23/03/2018 This Court has directed the trial Court to complete the trial within four months vide order dated 3rd October, 2017. The learned trial Court has sought further three months time for completion of trial.
It has been pointed out that 14 witnesses have been examined whereas, examination-in-chief of PW-15 has been completed.
In view of the proceedings taken by the trial Court, it would be appropriate to extend time to complete the trial expeditiously on or before 18.05.2018.
(Hemant Gupta) (S. K. Awasthi)
Chief Justice Judge
Moni
As per prosecution story, on 19/05/2017 at about 6:00 a.m., when the complainant alongwith other relatives was sleeping near the well at that time Vikram Singh, Kalu Singh and applicant-Suraj came their on their motorcycles and they forcibly took him to Village-Kala Pipal, where they confined him and beaten him by sticks, due to which he sustained injuries on his left thigh, neck and back. Thereafter, his sons Rajendra Singh, Hari Singh and Bharat Singh came there and rescue him.