Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh @ Sharad @ Sharan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8079 of 2021
Between:-
BRAJESH @ SHARAD @ SHARAN S/O SHRI
RAMESH BAMNE , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN WARD NO. 6
INDRAPURA IN FRONT OF RAM MANDIR
PURANI ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SAURABH TIWARI - ABSENT)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S. ITARSI DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SURENDRA KUMAR IVANE S/O DWARKA
PRASAD IVANE OCCUPATION: SUB REGISTRAR
ITARIS DISTT.HOSHANGABAD ANAND NAGAR
MAIN ROAD HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT.GAYATRI MAHALAHA W/O ANOOP
MAHALAHA , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILLAGE
JUJHARPUR TAHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT.MANISHA W/O AJAY MAHALARA , AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILLAGE JUJHARPUR TAHSIL
ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT.SHIVANI W/O AKHILESH MAHALARA ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE JUJHARPUR
TAHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NEERAJ KUMAR ALIAS RAJA PATEL S/O
Signature Not Verified
VIRENDRA PATEL , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PURANI ITARSI WARD NO. 1 TAHSIL ITARIS
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
BURMAN
Date: 2022.07.13 18:34:04 IST
7. PANKAJ GOYAL W/O SURESH GOYAL , AGED
2
ABOUT 60 YEARS, SATVI LINE ITARSI TAHSIL
ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. PRAMILA GOYAL W/O SURESH GOYAL , AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, SATVI LINE ITARSI TAHSIL
ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. DEENDAYAL ALIAS REVTI PRASAD SAHU S/O
PREMANARAYAN SAHU SANKHEDA ITARSI
TAHSIL ITARIS (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECOTR C DISTT.HOSHAGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHRADDHA TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is petition coming on for admission and I.R. this day, t h e court
passed the following:
ORDER
None for the petitioner. On earlier occasions, counsel for the petitioner did not appear in the matter.
By filling this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Court below to stay the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.113/2018 pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Itarsi and proceedings under Sessions Trial No.112/2018 pending in the same Court be stayed till disposal of civil suit no.03A/2015 pending in the same Court.Signature Not Verified
7.2 Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Cour may deem SAN Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be BURMAN Date: 2022.07.13 18:34:04 IST granted in favour of the petitioner."3
On perusal of the prayer clause, it is seen that the petitioner has not challenged any basic order but is seeking stay the proceedings of the Sessions trials only. Such relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief.
Accordingly, this petition is totally misconceived and liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vinay* Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.07.13 18:34:04 IST