Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Nirmala Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2017
In Deepak V. State of M.P., 1994 Cri. LJ 767, the deceased girl was threatened with defamation, if she refused to have sexual intercourse with two accused. Soon thereafter she committed suicide leaving a suicidal note. It was observed that the act of the accused can be a cause for commission of suicide but this is not sufficient for prosecution; the prosecution has to show the accused intended such a result. Accepting the plea that the act of the accused might have been a reason for committing suicide but the same did not constitute abatement within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC. It was held "neither there was any intention nor any positive act on the part of the accused to instigate her or aid her in committing suicide. The two accused persons, therefore, cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and their conviction on that count by the trial Court, is liable to be set aside." In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002*, the deceased had returned from her in laws house and told her brothers and acquaintances that the appellant(brother in law) had threatened and abused her by using filty language. The deceased had visited the house of his in law on 25.07.1998 and committed suicide on 27.07.1998. In these facts it was held that the fact that deceased had committed suicide on 27.07.1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel that took place on 25.07.1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had also told the deceased to go and die. M.Cr.C. No.735/2017 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted 3 days time to file the copy of bye-laws of the society regarding the person who is responsible for maintaining the register of fair price shop. Be listed on 01/02/2017. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.621/2017 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted 3 days time to file the copy of bye-laws of the society regarding the person who is responsible for maintaining the register of fair price shop. Be listed on 01/02/2017. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.136/2017 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to supply the copy of additional documents to the learned Panel Lawyer. Be listed on 03/02/2017. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.122/2017 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner list the matter alongwith connected Cr.A. No. 105/2016 after two weeks (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.26/2017 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. Record of the court below be called for. List alongwith record in the next week (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.17/2017 27/01/2017 None for the petitioner. By way of indulgence two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to cure the defects pointed out by the Office and in case of failure to do so within the stipulated time, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. Be listed thereafter. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8903/2016 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. As per office report respondents Santosh and Ashok are no more. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to take appropriate steps in this regard. Be listed thereafter. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.355/2016 27/01/2017 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Chourasiya, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the case is listed on 30/01/2017 before the trial Court for final argument. Be listed on 03/02/2017. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.685/2005 27/01/2017 Parties through their counsel. Learned Panel Lawyer further prays for and is granted time to call the verification report of the death certificate of appellant No.3 Ramesh. Be listed after four weeks. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.915/2017 27/01/2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Puttan @ Sayaram, who has been arrested by Police on 09/01/2017 in Crime No. 636/2016, Police Station Rajpur, District-Barwani, in connection with offences under Section 4,6 and 9 of the M.P. 'Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam' 2004 and Section 11-D of the 'Pashu Krurata NiwaranAdhiniyam'. Allegedly, 19 calves were recovered from Basiram and Sanjay and two other persons on 29/12/2016 while they were being taken towards Maharashtra. The complicity of the petitioner is based on the disclousre statement said to have been made by the Bansiram and Sanjay to the effect that they procured the calves from the present petitioner. Apart the disclosure statement there is no connecting evidence against petitioner. Though prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer, however, considering the nature of allegation against petitioner and the fact that apart the disclosure statement there is no connecting evidence against him, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. CC as per rules. (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge MCRC No.904/2017 27/01/2017 Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Nirbhaysingh, who has been arrested by Police on 15/12/2016 in Crime No. 824/2016, Police Station Industrial Area, District-Dewas, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act . Allegedly, 54 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. CC as per rules. (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge MCRC No.692/2017 27/01/2017 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Kapil, who has been arrested by Police on 05/01/2017 in Crime No. 618/16-17, Police Station Excise Circle-A Malwa Mill, District- Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 34(1)(A) and 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915 . Allegedly, 63 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. CC as per rules. (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge MCRC No.525/2017 27/01/2017 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is a repeat(second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioners-Sudama, Ishwar, Narayan, Himmat, Rajesh, Vinod and Krishna, who have been arrested by Police on 03/11/2016 in Crime No. 100/2016, Police Station Khatia District-Barwani, conerning offences under Sections 294,323,506,323, 147,148 and 149 of the IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. First petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26/12/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12436/2016. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition as regards petitioner No.1 Sudama. Prayer is granted. Accordingly, the petition with regard to pettioner No.1 Sudama is dismissed as withdrawn . As regards remaining petitioners, it is alleged that on 03/11/2016 around 9:30 a.m. they armed with sword, iron rod and stick formed unlawful assembly and with a common object assaulted Bharat, Prabhu, Jalam, Prem Singh and Lakhan. It is further alleged that Prem Singh sustained an injury on Occipito-Parietal region measuring 7 X 2 cm said to have been caused by petitioner No.1 Sudama. As regards remaining petitioners, it is not alleged that they caused any injury to any of the injured persons on a vital part of the body. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed and there is no apprehension that the petitioners on being enlarged on bail will misuse the liberty or run away from the course of justice. Though prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature of allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 namely, Ishwar, Narayan, Himmat, Rajesh, Vinod and Krishna, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by each of the petitioners in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, they shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. CC as per rules. (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge MCRC No.469/2017 27/01/2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is a repeat(second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Manisha, who has been arrested by Police on 31/07/2016 in Crime No. 324/2016, Police Station Kannod District-Dewas, in connection with offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. First petition came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 27/10/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10338/2016. The repeat prayer has been made solely on the ground that petitioner is a lady and she is under custody since 31/07/2016. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and is likely to take sufficient long time in its conclusion. It is further submitted there is no apprehension that petitioner will flee away from the course of justice, if released on bail. Though prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer, however, considering the facts of the case particularly the fact that offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and is likely to take sufficient long time in its conclusion, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, she shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that she shall make herself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. CC as per rules. (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge M.Cr.C. No.922/2017 27/01/2017 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition. Prayer is granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 27th January, 2017 27/01/2017 COMMON ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s); appellant(s) 37 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Himanshu Shri Rahul After a week 556/2017 Thakur Vijayvargiya 38 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Pawan Rai Shri Rahul After a week 615/2017 Vijaywargiya 39 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Anshul Shri Rahul After two 635/2017 Shrivastava Vijaywargiya weeks 40 M.Cr.C. No. Mrs. Aarti Shri Rahul After a week 659/2017 Kumawat Vijaywariya 42 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Z.S. Qureshi Shri Rahul After two 834/2017 Vijaywargiya weeks 43 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Rajesh Yadav Shri Rahul After two 876/2017 Vijaywargiya weeks 44 M.Cr.C. No. Shri O.P. Solanki Shri Rahul After two 887/2017 Vijaywargiya weeks 46 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A.S. Parihar Shri Rahul After a week 913/2017 Vijaywargiya 49 Cr.A. No. Shri Himanshu Shri Rahul After two 204/2013 Thakur Vijaywargiya weeks 50 Cr.A. No. Shri Himanshu Shri R.S. Parmar After eight 833/2013 Thakur weeks 87 Cr.A. No. Shri Jitendra None After three 1583/2014 Verma weeks 88 Cr.A. No. Shri Vivek Phadke Shri Harish Tripathi After three 402/2015 weeks 89 Cr.R. No. Shri Anupam Shri R.S. Parmar After four 1332/2015 Chouhan weeks 91 Cr.R. No. Shri Amit Singh Shri R.K. Yadav After two 827/2016 Chouhan weeks 92 Cr.R. No. None Ms. Prachi After four 1184/2016 Vijaywargiya weeks 93 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Anupam Shri N.J. Dave After two 2628/2016 Chouhan weeks 117 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Vismit Panot Shri Rahul After two 494/2017 Vijaywargiya weeks 118 M.Cr.C. No. Shri L.S. Shri Rahul On 534/2017 Chandiramani Vijaywargiya 30/01/2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. Nos.11509/2016 and 11512/2016 25/01/2017 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. As the common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions (M.Cr.C. Nos. 11509/2016 and 11512/2016). Therefore, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. The main order is being passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11509/2016.
The petitioner by way of this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The code') prays for quashment of FIR dated 21/06/2009 in Crime No. 185/2009, registered at police station Jawad District Neemuch, concerning offences under Sections 420, 467,468,471,109/120-B of the IPC at the instance of Chief Executive Officer, Jawad 'Janpad Panchayat Jawad' District Neemuch, complaining that as many as 42 persons procured appointment to the post of 'Samvida Shala Shikshak' Grade-II and Grade-III by submitting false, forged and fabricated documents regarding their qualification in computer.
Earlier, the prayer for quashment of FIR was made by a number of persons arrayed as co-accused and a coordinate bench of this Court vide a common order dated 18/10/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 136/2016, was pleased to allow the petitions of as many as 10 persons, particularly, on the ground that in identical facts and circumstances, another coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09/09/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6151/2015 (Anil S/o Rajmal Jain Vs. State of M.P.) has allowed identical prayer for quashment of FIR.
The order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6151/2015 runs as under:
"By this M.Cr.C. the applicant has prayed for quashment of the F.I.R. dated 21/06/2009, registered atCrime No.185/09 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120-B of the I.P.C. by Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the petition is completely covered by the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.8086/14, whereby the Court has also considered the fact that the prosecution was unfair and the applicant was alleged to have filed forged documents to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II and III, but there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the applicant and final order has not been passed and according to the report of Thana Prabhari dated 04/03/2015. The investigation is still pending and the challan has not been put up even today after a period of six years and also perusing the Annexure A/5 by Chief Executive Officer, Jawad it would be clear that the terminations have been stayed. In view of the decision passed by this Court in Writ Petiton No.4091/09 and others, whereby the scrutiny report is not found to be in accordance with the provisions of law and the petitioner is still continuing in service.
02 Counsel for the applicant fully relied on order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.8086/14, where this Court has held thus:
"3.Counsel for the applicants have vehemently submitted that the prosecution was unfair. In the complaint the complainant had submitted that the applicants had filed forged documents for the appointment, but no incriminating evidence is available on record against the applicants and no final order has been passed and in fact according to the report of the Thana Prabhari dated 04/03/2015 that the investigation is still continuing and therefore, no challan has been put up. It is also mentioned that 42 applicants were being proceeded and Counsel at this juncture urged that the other applicants were selected for the post and they are working in the post and the present applicants are deprived of the same; on the ground of parity, the applicants are also entitled to be continued in the post.
3 There are no other mala-fides impugned against the applicants and the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120-B of the IPC, are not made out against them. Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed.
4 Per Contra Counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently submitted that it was the CEO, who was made the complaint and 42 applicants were proceeded against and the documents were seized according to Janpad Panchayat, but the Investigation Officer did not have any sufficient material evidence and has prayed for time. Counsel candidly admitted that the investigation is not completed even today. However, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5 On considering the entire controversy, it is found that the future of the present applicants cannot be allowed to be placed in jeopardy in such a fashion and hence I find that the FIR is liable to be quashed. If at all the Investigating Authority come to a different conclusion, then, they are at liberty to take appropriate action against the present applicants. However, the present FIR dated 21/06/2009 registered at the Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch against both the petitioners is hereby quashed."
03 Counsel for the applicant prayed that the FIR in the present case also be quashed.
04 Counsel for the respondent/State in the present case has again failed to give any information regarding the enquiry report and whether the investigation has been completed and whether the experience certificate of the present applicant has still been held to be fraudulent.\ 05 On considering the pendency that criminal proceeding is seriously affecting the future prospects of the applicant, on grounds of parity alone, the petition is allowed. The ratio laid-down in such a case M.Cr.C. No.8086/14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case also and it is therefore directed that FIR dated 21/06/2009 registered at Crime No.185/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120-B of the IPC by Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch is hereby quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
06. However, it is made clear that in case, the Investigating Authority comes to different conclusion, which shall be free to take appropriate action against the present applicant also.
CC as per rules."
It is not disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate that allegations against the petitioners in these two petitions and against those, who had earlier preferred petitions for quashment of FIR, which came to be allowed, by this Court, are identical, therefore, the petitioners are having parity with them.
In view of the aforesaid and for the reasons assigned in order dated 09/09/2015 rendered in M.Cr.C. No. 6151/2015 (Anil S/o Rajmal Jain Vs. State of M.P.) this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Consequently, FIR dated 21/06/2009 in Crime No. 185/2009, registered at Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch, concerning offences under Sections 420, 467,468,471,109/120-B of the IPC is hereby quashed qua petitioner Abdul Raees Khan (M.Cr.C. No. 11509/2016) and petitioner Smt. Nirmala Parmar (M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016) are discharged for the offences under Sections 42,467, 468,471, 109/120-B of the IPC.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No. 11512/2016.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12986/2016 25/01/2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
On payment of process fee within a week, notice be issued to respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12203/2016 25/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
Be listed after a week.
IR to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8930/2016 25/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
It transpires from the office report that service report of notice issued against respondent No.3 Karan is still awaited.
Be listed after two weeks alongwith service report.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8500/2016 25/01/2017 Shri Mahesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8052/2016 25/01/2017 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for petitioner/State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks time to rectify the error in IA No. 9442/2016.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.6802/2016 25/01/2017 Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to take necessary steps to implead complainant -Kamla Bai as respondent No.2.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.2025/2016 25/01/2017 Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravi Potdar, respondent present in person prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
Be listed on 08/03/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 25th January, 2017 25/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
59 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Sunil Saxena Shri Ravindra After two weeks
2828/2016 Bhawsar
60 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Umesh Sharma Shri R.K. Bakliya After two weeks
3101/2016
62 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Z.S. Qureshi Shri Pankaj After two weeks
7607/2016 Wadhwani
64 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Dinesh Tiwari After four weeks
8095/2016
67 M.Cr.C. No. Shri S.L. Gwaliory Shri Pankaj After two weeks
10202/2016 Wadhwani
68 M.Cr.C. No. Shri D.S. Ghodake Shri Panakj List before
11179/2016 Wadhwani appropriate
Bench
69 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Jitendra Verma Shri Panakj After two weeks
11413/2016 Wadhwani
Cr.R. No. 1/2017 Shri Kratik Mandloi None After two weeks
74
102 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after a week
847/2017 Wadhwani
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.778/2017
24/01/2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Ritesh, who has been arrested by Police on 31/12/2016 in Crime No. 188/2016, Police Station Petlavad District-Jhabua, in connection with offences under Sections 363,366, 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, was enticed away by the petitioner and taken to Gujrat. It is further alleged that she was kept in confinement for around 6-7 months and was also subjected to rape .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has stated that she voluntarily left her parental home because her father wanted to marry her to some person against her choice for money, therefore, she asked the petitioner, with whom she had acquintance, to accompany her to Gujrat and thereafter, both of them went to Gujrat and stayed there as husband and wife. She has also submitted that she is still residing with he petitioner as his wife.
Though prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate on the ground that as per the school record she was below 16 years at the time of commission of alleged offence, however, it is found that in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the father of the prosecutrix has not stated anything about the age or date of birth of the prosecutrix, and in the 'Supurdagi' receipt dated 31/12/2016 her age is stated to be 16 years and 4 ½ months. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.766/2017
24/01/2017
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a repeat(third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Vijay, who was arrested by Police on 14/05/2016 in Crime No.133/2016, Police Station Chhatripura, District- Indore, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and is presently being tried in criminal case No. 21732/2016 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
The first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 03/08/2016 rendered in M.Cr.C. No. 5859/2016 on the ground that petitioner is having criminal record. Second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04/11/2016 rendered in M.Cr.C. NO. 10440/2016.
The repeat prayer for bail has been made solely on the ground of delay in trial. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been in custody for more than 8 ½ months and still trial has not been completed and that there is no likelihood that the trial will be completed in near future. It is further submitted that minimum imprisonment of 1 year is stipulated under the law. Therefore, considering the custodial period the petitioner may be released on bail.
Though the prayer for grant of bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 8 months and the prosecution has not been able to examine all its witnesses before the trial Court, it would be appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.764/2017
24/01/2017
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Arjun Dhakad, who has been arrested by Police on 13/12/2016 in Crime No.309/2016, Police Station Udaynagar, District- Dewas, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Sections 3/181,39/177, 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Allegedly, 58.5 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.789/2017
24/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to produce the case-diary.
As the bail is sought on the medical ground of the applicant's wife, learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to verify the same.
Be listed on 30/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 24th January, 2017 24/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
32 Cr.R. No. Shri V.S. Mewada None After a week
1537/2016 alongwith
service report
31 Cr.R. No. Shri V.S. Mewada None After two weeks
1412/2016
30 Cr.A. No. Shri Ashish Vyas Shri Pankaj After two weeks
1324/2016 Wadhwani
29 Cr.R. No. Shri Gagan Parashar Shri Pankaj After two weeks
1111/2016 Wadhwani
27 Cr.A. No. Shri B.S. Yadav Shri Pankaj After two weeks
1046/2016 Wadhwani
27.1 Cr.A. No. Shri L.S. Shri Pankaj After two weeks
1302/2016 Chandiramani Wadhwani
26 Cr.A. No. 176/2013 None Shri Pankaj After two weeks
Wadhwani
25 Cr.A. No. 421/2012 Shri Manoj Manav Shri Pankaj After two weeks
Wadhwani
23 M.Cr.C. No. Shri M.K. Sharma Shri Pankaj After a week
793/2017 Wadhwani
22 M.Cr.C. No. Ms. Sonali Gupta Shri Pankaj After a week
792/2017 Wadhwani
20 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A. Upadhyay Shri Pankaj After a week
787/2017 Wadhwani
18 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Jitendra Sharma Shri Pankaj After a week
767/2017 Wadhwani
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1073/2016
23/01/2017
Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondent, though duly served. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 7964/2016, an application for suspension of sentence as regards imposition of fine.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act and each has been sentenced to undergo 2years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 9,94,977/-.
The appellants were prosecuted for committing theft of electricity and thereby causing a loss of Rs.3,31,659/- to respondent-Company. The custodial sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 19/08/2016 after admitting the appeal for hearing.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that against the alleged loss of Rs.3,31,659/- the learned trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 9,94,977/- against each of the appellant while electric connection was only in the name of appellant Leelabai. It is further submitted that total fine imposed against the appellants for alleged theft/loss of electricity is almost 6 times while generally, as per Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act it has to be 3 times of the loss. It is further submitted that appellants due to financial hardships are not in a position to deposit the entire fine amount, therefore, sentence as regards payment of fine may be suspended or apprpriately reduced.
On due consideration it is ordered that on payment of Rs.2.50 Lacs by each of the appellant within three weeks from today the recovery of remaining fine shall be suspended till the disposal of this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No. 7964/2016 stands allowed. Be listed in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.623/2016 23/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.6 Gabbar for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.179/2016 23/01/2017 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for appellant/State. None for the respondent, though duly served. Let the record of the trial court be requisitioned. Be listed after three weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1593/2016 23/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.
Be listed on 27/01/2017.
Interim Relief to continue till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.263/2017 23/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to collect the medical report of the complainant.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.13303/2016 23/01/2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Rakesh @ Chauhan, who has been arrested by Police on 16/12/2016 in Crime No.306/2016, Police Station Kurawar, District- Rajgarh, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 80 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.12473/2016
23/01/2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Irfan, who has been arrested by Police on 27/07/2016 in Crime No. 282/2016, Police Station Namli District-Ratlam, concerning offences under Sections 407,365,397,411 and 412/120-B of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, 29 tons and 916 Kgs of copper wire, which was to be transported from Pithampur (Dhar) to Bhilwada (Rajasthan) was stolen/misappropriated by driver Ramesh and cleaner Bhanwar. Allegedly, 820 Kgs of the stolen wire has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and therefore, accusation under Section 411 of the IPC has been levelled against him.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's brother Mohd. Irshad is running a 'Kabari Shop' at Delhi, from where the stolen cupper wire was recovered by police and that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
Prayer for grant of bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate submitting that petitioner is having criminal antecedents and that as per the record he is involved in identical type of cases registered at Pali (Rajasthan) and Delhi.
In response it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not accused in the Delhi case, however, in the case of Pali (Rajasthan) he has been made an accused alongwith his brother Mohd. Irshad.
Considering the fact that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and that the offence under Section 411 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto three years, it would be appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.
Resultantly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only), with two solvent sureties of Rs. One Lac each out of which one should be local in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.10368/2016
23/01/2017
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Mangilal, who has been arrested by Police on 11/08/2016 in Crime No. 163/2016, Police Station Suthaliya District-Rajgarh, in connection with offences under Sections 363,366, 366(A), 370(A)(1), 372,373, 506,120-B, 506/182 of the IPC and Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, was kidnapped by 4 persons namely Sanju Sondhiya, Kumer Singh, Babulal and Kanwarlal. As per prosecution, at the relevant time she was travelling in a pick up vehicle alongwith petitioner Mangilal-her step father, Geetabai-her step mother and her brothers Rakesh and Gopal. It is further alleged that Sanju Sondhiya, Kumer Singh, Babulal and Kanwarlal asked the petitioner-Mangilal to alight from the vehicle; step mother-Geetabai and her two children Rakesh and Gopal were also alighted from the vehicle and the prosecutrix was taken to some unknown place. Allegedly, later on the prosecutrix was handed over to Narayan Singh, who is said to have been stated to the prosecutrix that he has purchased/procured her from her step father-Mangilal (applicant).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the very next day of the incident the petitioner has lodged a report in police Station Suthaliya with regard to kidnapping of her daughter by four unknown persons. It is further submitted that there is no legal evidence against him, apart from the disclousre said to have been made by the Narayan Singh and the Statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Narayan Singh told her that he has procured her from the petitioner- Mangilal.
It is not disputed that petitioner has lodged the report of alleged kidnapping of the prosecutrix on the very next day of the incident. Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.308/2017
23/01/2017
Shri Pourush Raka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Ishwar Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 05/04/2016 in Crime No. 174/2016, Police Station City Kotwali District-Mandsaur, in connection with offences under Sections 363,366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 and 5L/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Case-Diary. Allegedly, the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years was enticed away by the present petitioner and taken to Bhilwara. It is further alleged that she was subjected to rape by the petitioner .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has deposed that she accompanied the petitioner on her own accord and was having physical relations with him at her own violation.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Matter notified on the Board dated 23rd January, 2017 23/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
25 M.Cr.C.No. None Shri Pankaj After two weeks
268/2017 Wadhwani
27 M.Cr.C. No. Shri R.R. Bhatnagar Shri Pankaj After two weeks
339/2017 Wadhwani
4 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Mukesh Sharma Shri Pankaj On 27/01/2017
621/2017 Wadhwani
40 Cr.A. No. 477/2016 Shri Ashish Gupta Shri Pankaj After a week
Wadhwani
87 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Pavan Jain None After two weeks
8979/2013 alongwith
M.Cr.C. No.
8980/2013.
88 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Nilesh Joshi None After a week
11170/2015
90 Cr.R. No. 567/2016 Shri Amit Singh Shri Pankaj After three
Wadhwani weeks alongwith
Cr.R. No.
829/2016
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.220/2017
23/01/2017
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioners- Bhanwar Singh and Nawalchandra, who have been arrested by Police on 21/11/2016 in Crime No.392/2016, Police Station Jawad, District- Neemuch, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 126 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the joint possession of the present petitioners for which they were not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by each of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, they shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.18/2017
23/01/2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Chainsingh, who has been arrested by Police on 214/12/2016 in Crime No.522/2016, Police Station Thandla, District- Jhabua, in connection with offence under Sections 34(2), 36 and 46 M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 11923 bulk litres of foreign liqour which was being transported in truck bearing registration No. MP-09 HH-3008 was seized by police on 13/12/2016 on account of the fact that transport permit was not found with the petitioner, who was driver of the truck.
Learned counel for the petitioner submits that the liquor was being transported under a valid permit and that subsequently, the same was produced before Collector, Jhabua pursuant to which, Collector, Jhabua, vide order dated 09/01/2017, had released the truck to its owner. In this connection, the attention of this Court is invited to the copy of order passed by Collector, Jhabua, in which it is stated that the permit with regard to transport was produced before him.
In aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the State has not oppossed the prayer for grant of bail.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 662 Of 2017
20.01.2017
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner- Amarlal S/o Pemaji Regar, who is under custody since 10/01/2016 in Crime No. 14/2016 of Police Station-Manasa, Distt. Neemuch, concerning offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and presently is being tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa District Neemuch in ST No. 34/2016.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complicity of the petitioner in the alleged murder of Amarlal S/o Partha was based on the statement made by Prem Bai, Manohar and Vikram during investigation, who claimed to be eye witnesses of the incident.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that these three witnesses have been examined before the trial Court; Prembai (P.W.1), in her statement, has deposed that when she reached at the spot she found her father lying in the pool of blood and that Vikram (P.W.2) and Manohar (P.W.3) have also not deposed that they saw the petitioner assaulting deceased.
It is further submitted that in the similar premises co-accused Prahlad has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15/12/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12576/2016.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his regular presence during the trial of the case.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.620/2017 20/01/2017 Shri A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.39/2017 20/01/2017 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is grated a week's time to comply with Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 and to produce case-diary.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12682/2016 20/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of the petition.
Be listed on 30/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.187/2011 20/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and is granted time to verify the factum of death of appellant Lad Singh.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1061/2011 20/01/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Rajesh has expired on 06/09/2016.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to verify the factum of death of appellant Rajesh.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.688/2012 20/01/2017 Appellant-Kalu Singh is present in person. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Appellant submits that he wanted to engage another counsel. Prayer is granted.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.751/2012 20/01/2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Non-bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of appellant/Mukesh has been returned unserved with a report that the appellant is not available at his usual place of residence and despite all efforts he could not be arrested.
Custodial sentence imposed against appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 06/09/2013 subject to condition that he will regularly appear before this Court till the appeal is disposed off. As the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the order of suspension, therefore, the suspension order deserves to be and is accordingly, hereby recalled.
Learned trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant by correcive means and send him back to jail for serving out his remaining part of jail sentence.
Considering the fact that appellant and his counsel are not appearing in the matter, the High Court Legal Services Committee is requested to appoint a lawyer within a week to argue this appeal on behalf of appellant/Mukesh.
Appeal is already admitted for final hearing. Matter be listed in due course for final hearing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.1778/2013
20/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Compromise petition is required to be verified. Parties are directed to remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 15/02/2017 at 11:00 a.m. for verification of compromise.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 20th January, 2017 20/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s) 85 Cr.A. No. Shri Piyush Dubey None On 23/01/2017 1073/2016 84 Cr.R. No. Shri A.K. Saraswat None After two weeks 1409/2015 78 Cr.A. No. 12/2010 Shri Rajesh Yadav Shri Pankaj After two weeks Wadhwani 77 Cr.A. No. None Shri Pankaj After four weeks 1196/2001 Wadhwani 76 Cr.A. No. 775/2008 None Shri Pankaj After four weeks Wadhwani 71 M.Cr.C. No. Shri M.K. Sharma Shri Pankaj In the next week 12368/2016 Wadhwani 73 M.Cr.C. No. Shri G.R. Purohit Shri Pankaj After two weeks 12836/2016 Wadhwani 129 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Ritesh Inani Shri Rahul After a week 634/2017 Vijayvargiya 130 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Ritesh Inani Shri Rahul After a week 641/2017 Vijayvargiya 131 M.Cr.C. No. Shri R.R. Bhatnagar Shri Rahul After two weeks 644/2017 Vijayvargiya 132 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Rahul After two weeks 646/2017 Vijayvargiya Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.4183/2016
17/01/2017
Shri G.L. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved with order dated 02/03/2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore (Shri Ashutosh Agrawal) in Criminal Case No. 20233/2014, whereby application submitted by the petitioner/complainant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') has been rejected.
Criminal Case No. 20233/2014 has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner- Dinesh against respondent-Manoj with regard to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'The NI Act').
By way of application under Section 91 of 'The Code', the petitioner sought leave of the trial Court to take on record an electricity bill issued in the name of Kiran Lalit Raikwar, averring therein that the same could not be filed earlier because of oversight.
The learned trial Court rejected the application holding that electricity bill has been issued in the name of Kiran Lalit Raikwar and not in the name of respondent/accused, hence, the same is not relevant.
The reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for refusal to take the electricity bill in question on record cannot be said to be unreasonable. If the petitioner wants to prove that he is residing in the house of respondent as tenant, necessary evidence in that regard could have been produced, however, the aforesaid bill issued in the name of some other persons may not be considered as relevant to prove the same.
In view of the aforesaid, no fault is found in the impugned order, therefore, it is not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of 'The Code'. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
SA No.306/1999
19/01/2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.184/1999 19/01/2017 Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.174/1999 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.115/1999 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.112/1999 19/01/2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the instruction of appellant he has handed over the brief of the case to Shri S.K. Pawnekar, therefore, matter shall be argued by newly engaged counsel.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.111/1999 19/01/2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the instruction of appellant he has handed over the brief of the case to Shri S.K. Pawnekar, therefore, matter shall be argued by newly engaged counsel.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.596/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.581/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.552/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.246/2000 19/01/2017 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for appellant/State. Shri Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that today he is not prepared to argue the matter.
Prayer is granted.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.524/1998 19/01/2017 Shri Harshad Wadnekar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that today he is not prepared to argue the matter and he will argue the matter after a week.
Prayer is granted.
Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.367/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.513/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.508/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.435/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.421/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.412/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.404/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.387/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.384/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.500/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.311/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.259/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.187/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.131/1998 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.103/1997 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.57/1997 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.90/1996 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.75/1994 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.343/1984 19/01/2017 Case called out, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.580/1999 19/01/2017 Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Today this case is listed under the caption of Supreme Court Expedite Cases and this appeal is pending since 1999.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.1475/2016 17/01/2017 Shri A.S.Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
This is a revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "The Code") challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 07/10/2016 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Ratlam, whereby charges under Section 341, 147, 363, 364, 506 and 302/149 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,1989 were framed against the petitioners and co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala in special Case No. 173/2016.
As per the prosecution case, on 24/03/2016 petitioners and co- accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala had assaulted Sanjay Chouhan(deceased) by kicks and fists due to which he sustained bruices and swelling all over the body. He was admitted in Rathore Nursing Home, Jawra and was discharged on the next day i.e. 25/03/2016. Thereafter, he was again taken to Rathore Nursing Home, Jawra and on being advised, to be taken to Ratlam, he was admitted on 03/04/2016 in a hospital at Ratlam. Same day he was shifted to CHL Appolo Hospital, Indore, where he breathed his last on 04/04/2016 around 7:00 A.M. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 07/11/2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1410/2016, co- accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala has been discharged with regard to offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the allegation against petitioners and co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala are of identical nature, therefore, they also deserves to be discharged.
Relevant part of order dated 07/11/2016 passed in Cr.R. No. 1410/2016 runs as under:-
"As per prosecution, on 24/03/2016 around 11:00 A.M., Sanjay Chouhan(deceased), who was coming back to his home on a motorcycle with a crate of beer, was intercepted by the petitioner and 6 other persons namely- Pintu Banna, Rakesh, Virendra Singh, Jeevan Singh, Kishore and Karulal. Allegedly, they asked him as to from where he has procured the beer. It is further alleged, that the petitioner and other co-accused persons assaulted Sanjay Chouhan(deceased) by kicks and fists; he was also given stick blow on abdomen by Pintu Banna. Allegedly, thereafter, he was taken in a jeep to village Nagri, where he was further assaulted. After about two hours, Virendra Singh and Manish brought him back to his house in a Tavera vehicle. It is further the case of the prosecution, that as Sanjay Chouhan sustained bruises and swelling over his body and was complaining of pain, therefore, he was taken to 'Patidar Clinic' at Dhodhar, where he was administered some pain relieving injection and was further advised to be taken to Rathore Nursing Home, Jawra. Allegedly, thereafter, Sanjay Chouhan (deceased) was admitted in Rathore Nursing Home, Jawra and was discharged on the next day i.e. 25/03/2016. On 02/04/2016, Sanjay Chouhan (deceased) complained of hemoptysis, therefore, he was again taken to Rathore Nursing Home, Jawra and on being advised, to be taken to Ratlam, he was admitted on 03/04/2016 in a hospital at Ratlam. Same day he was shifted to CHL Appolo Hospital, Indore, where he breathed his last on 04/04/2016 around 7:00 A.M. On the basis of report lodged by Ritik Chouhan- the son of the deceased, on 05/04/2016 at Police Station Ringnod, District Ratlam, a case for offence under Section 302,341,506, 363, 364, 147, 148/149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 was registered against the petitioners and co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against them with regard to offence under Section 147,341,363,364, 302 and 506/149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
The learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order, has framed charges for offences under Sections 302,341,147,148,149,506, 363 and 364 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,1989 against the present petitioners and co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if all the allegations made in the FIR are accepted on its face value, the charge for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. Attention in this regard is drawn to postmortem report, a copy of which is available from page No. 40 to 45 as well copy of the report issued by the CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore on 04/04/16, in which, death summary has been recorded.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem has not found any external or internal injury on the body of the deceased. He further expressed inability to express any definite opinion regarding cause of death of Sanjay Chouhan(deceased). Though, the visra was preserved, however, no poisonous substance has been found in the visra as per report dated 26/08/2016 issued by Assistant Chemical, Examiner of Regional Forensic Science, Laboratory, Indore.
Death summary report dated 04/04/2016 issued by CHL Appolo Hospital, Indore reads as under :-
"Mr. Sanjay Chouhan 40 Yrs. Male, admitted with complaints of cough ad mixed with blood since 3-00 a.m. on 03/04/16 associated with chest pain. Initially managed at Rathore Nursing Home, then Ratlam Hospital, where work-up chest X-ray S/o - Haemothorax with Pneumothorax. Then shifted here for futher management. Patient had past history of recurrent fever relieved on medication and had history of blunt injury chest and abdomen on 25/03/16. On admission patient has poor respiration with decreased SPO2-80% with O2, Tachycardia with Hypotension. On work-up CT-chest S/o- Bilateral lung consoidation. Patient was managed with NIPPV, I/V antibiotics and other supportive medication. Blood investigation S/O decrease TLC. Inspire of all these measures, patient's condition further deteriorated with persistent Hypoxemia and Hemoptysis. On 04/04/2016, 6:30 am patient became unresponsive with bradycardia, CPR done as per ACIS protocal. Inspite of all best possible measures patient could not be reviewed and declared dead at 7:45 a.m. On 04/04/2016."
Aforesaid report reveals that Sanjay Chouhan(deceased) was suffering from Haemothorax with Pneumothorax and had a past history of recurrent fever. He was also suffering from persistent hemoptysis.
Culpable Homicide has been defined under Section 299 of the IPC while Section 302 of the IPC deals with offence of murder. Causing death by doing an act with intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or doing an act with a knowledge that death is likely result of such act amounts to culpable homicide. Culpable homicide covered within any of the four categories specified in Section 302 of the IPC amounts to murder.
In the instant case on consideration of the p.m. report as well as the death summary report issued by the CHL Appolo, Hospital, Indore, prima-facie it cannot be said that the deceased has sustained any external or internal injury which was likely to cause death. Further, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an intention to cause death of Sanjay Chouhan(deceased) or that he did any act with a knowledge that by such act he is likely to cause death of Sanjay Chouhan (deceased).
Clearly, necessary ingredients to constitute culpable homicide within the meaning of Section 299 of the IPC or for that matter to constitute an offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC are totally missing in the present case. Therefore, prima-facie, charge for offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners. The learned trial Court, without adverting to the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the case has framed the charge for offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC against present petitioner, which cannot be sustained."
From the aforesaid it is clear that the allegation against the petitioners and co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala are of identical in nature. As co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Lal Singh @ Lala has already been discharged for offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC vide detailed reasoned order, therefore, the petitioners also deserves the same treatment.
Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order to the extent it relates to the charge for offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC against the present petitioners is hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged for the offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.11366/2016 18/01/2017 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has straightaway knocked the doors of this Court by way of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'The Code') seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 2823/2016 filed before the learned JMFC, Indore by the respondent against the petitioner, under Sections 12,18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act, 2005 (for short 'The Act').
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of this court to copy of order dated 06/08/2004, said to have been rendered by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in HMA No. 421/2013, whereby ex-parte decree for divorce was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background respondent has no legal right to persue the remedy provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act, 2005.
It is revealed that the petitioner has not yet agitated this issue before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, before whom the petition under Section 12 of 'The Act' has been filed by the respondent. Had it been so learned Magistrate would have considerd the pleas raised by the petitioner to reach a conclusion about maintainability of the petition. However, instead of approaching the learned trial Court with an appropriate prayer, the petitioner has rushed directly to this Court.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly hereby dismissed in limine, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to raise the objections before the learned trial Court. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 653/2017
18/01/2017
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute with complainant. He prays for and is granted two week's time to file the compromise application.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt CRA No. 93/2017 18/01/2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed in due course.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.306/2017 18/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to verify the fact that petitioner is the sole grand-son of deceased Amritram Ji Daka.
Be listed on 20/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.451/2015 18/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellants Ritesh, Rituraj and Anand before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 20/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.1293/2016 18/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for fixed date to keep present appellant Umakant before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 14/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1428/2016 18/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellants Rama, Rajing and Shantilal before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 14/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No. 519/2017 18/01/2017 Shri Kaushal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Heard learned counsel for the parties, on IA No. 365/2017, an application for dispensing with filing of vakalatnama.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, IA No. 365/2017 has been rendered infructuous.
Accordinly, IA No. 365/2017 is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.821/1997 17/01/2017 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Non-bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of appellant/Harish Kumar has been returned unserved with a report that the appellant is not available at his usual place of residence and despite all efforts he could not be arrested.
Custodial sentence imposed against appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 10/08/1998 subject to condition that he will regularly appear before this Court till the appeal is disposed off. As the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the order of suspension, therefore, the suspension order deserves to be and is accordingly, hereby recalled.
Learned trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant by correcive means and send him back to jail for serving out his remaining part of jail sentence.
Considering the fact that appellant and his counsel are not appearing in the matter, the High Court Legal Services Committee is requested to appoint a lawyer within a week to argue this appeal on behalf of appellant/Harish Kumar.
Appeal is already admitted for final hearing. Matter be listed in due course for final hearing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.371/2006
18/01/2017
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 432/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant No.1 Imran Khan on 16/09/2013 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 absence of the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 432/2017 is allowed and the applicant No.1 Imran Khan absence on 16/09/2013 is hereby condoned.
Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 433/2017, an application for recalling of non-bailable warrant issued against applicant No.1 Imran Khan.
On due consideration, IA No. 433/2017 is allowed. It is directed that non- bailable warrant issued against applicant No.1 Imran Khan be recalled.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant No. 1 Imran Khan is present before this Court.
The applicant No.1 Imran Khan is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.143/2017
18/01/2017
Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in criminal case No. 1249/2014, which has arisen from Crime No. 22/2014 registered at Police Station Rajgarh District Rajgarh(Biaora), concerning offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 9 of 'M.P. Kerosine Vyapari Anugyapan Aadesh, 1979'.
Relevant facts, briefly stated are, that pursuant to a news item published in daily news paper 'Patrika' dated 27/12/2013, Bhopal, Crime No. 22/2014 was registered against the petitioner, in Kotwali Rajgarh for offences under Sections 420,468,406 and 471/120-B of the IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essesntial Commodities Act. The matter was investigated. The allegation against the petitioner is that during April- December, 2013 he as a licensee for distribution of kerosene oil, did not distribute 1,20,647 liters of kerosene oil to various societies for whom it was procured by him.
The matter was investigated by the Police. In the wake of the complaint the distributorship license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, which was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.
After investigation Police submitted a closure report before the competent Magistrate stating that no offence is made out against the petitioner. The Assistant Supply Officer submitted objections against the closure report contending that the police has not properly investigated the case and that the documents filed by the petitioner were taken into consideration.
The learned Magistrate, vide impugned order, was pleased to reject the closure report and to take cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 9 of 'M.P. Kerosine Vyapari Anugyapan Aadesh, 1979'.
The sole grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the petitioner, though, there was no material on record to constitute the offences alleged against him. It is further submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner only on the ground that during investigation police has taken into consideration certain documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to his claim that kerosene oil was properly distributed by him to the societies. It is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct in holding that such documents ought not to have been taken into consideration by Investigating Agency because the same related to the defence of the petitioner. Accordingly prayer has been made for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in criminal case No. 1249/2014.
On the contrary learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that learned trial Court, on due consideration of relevant material, has taken cognizance against petitioner. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Relevant parts of the impugned order runs as under:-
" iqfyl us bl vk/kkj ij [kkRek izLrqr fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr dk tks dysDVj }kjk ykbZlasl fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk og dfe'uj Hkksiky }kjk vikLr dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj vfHk;qDr us tks nLrkost fn;s gS muds vk/kkj ij rsy dk vkcaVu lgh ik;k x;k gS A iqfyl }kjk lkslk;Vh izca/kdksa ds dksbZ dFku ugha fy;s x;s vkSj muls vkcaVu laca/kh dksbZ nLrkost Hkh tIr ugha fd;s x;s gS A vfHk;qDr }kjk tks nLrkost is'k fd;s gS mudk iz;ksx og dsoy cpko esa dj ldrk gS A dfe'uj }kjk dysDVj ds vkns'k dks vikLr fd;s tkus ls vfHk;qDr ds vijk/k laca/kh d`R; ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gSA"""
The learned Magistrate has rejected the closure report solely on the ground that documents submitted by the petitioner were taken into consideration by the Investigation Agency, however, there is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that prima-facie necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Rule 9 of 'M.P. Kerosine Vyapari Anugyapan Aadesh, 1979' were available. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Resultantly this petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will pass a reasoned order on the basis of material available in the report filed by the police.
The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 194/2017
18/01/2017
Shri Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Gaurav Chhabara, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for respondent No.2/State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute. He prays for and is granted a week's time to file the original compromise petition. A copy of lis has already been filed.
Parties are directed to appear before Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise on 28/01/2017.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt CRA No. 32/2017 18/01/2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 18th January, 2017 18/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
72 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Rahul Sharma Shri Rahul After two weeks
12005/2016 Vijayvargiya
73 M.Cr.C. No. Shri S.S. Tanwar Shri Rahul After two weeks
12824/2016 Vijayvargiya
75 Cr.A. No. 42/2017 Shri H.C. Tripathi Shri Rahul On 25/01/2017
Vijayvargiya
78 M.Cr.C. No. Shri T.C. Jain Shri Kshitij Vyas On 25/01/2017
267/2017
100 Cr.A. No. 114/2016 None Shri Pankaj In the next week
Wadhwani
90 Cr.A. No. None Shri Pankaj In the next week
1385/2010 Wadhwani
8 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj In the next week
11330/2016 Wadhwani
141 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Dinesh Tiwari Shri Pankaj After two weeks
192/2017 Wadhwani
140 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Dinesh Tiwari Shri Pankaj After two weeks
191/2017 Wadhwani
139 M.Cr.C. No. Mrs. Anamika Sen Shri Pankaj After two weeks
34/2017 Wadhwani
131 Cr.A. No. 78/2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav Shri Panakj After two weeks
Wadhwani
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1058/2016
17/01/2017
Shri Mohammad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rais Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. This petition preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'The Code') read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short 'The Act') calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 30/07/2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Criminal Case No. 390/2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards maintenance to respondent-wife under Section 125 of 'The Code'.
It is not a matter of dispute that parties were married to each other on 23/05/2012, however, soon thereafter matrimonial discord was there, and therefore, respondent-wife started residing away from the petitioner. She by way of petition under Section 125 of 'The Code' prayed for grant of maintenance on the ground that she was driven out of the matrimonial home, after being subjected to cruetly and harassment by petitioner and his parents who used to quarrel with her. It was further averred that petitioner is gainfully employed and is earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. while respondent has no source of income.
Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it, vide the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance as stated herein above in para 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of marriage the respondent was employed in a Coaching Center and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. Attention of this Court in this regard is invited to Ex.P/6 hindi transcript of 'Nikahnama' placed by the respondent before the learned trial Court, in which employment of respondent has been mentioned as 'Coaching'. Further attention is drawn to exhibit D/1(c), which is a certificate said to have been issued by MABF Academy, Khazrana, Indore, wherein it is stated that respondent is working as teacher in the school since last one year and is being paid Rs.6,000/-p.m. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceaded that respondent is employeed in a Academy as a teacher and is being paid Rs.6,000/- p.m. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Evidence available on record clearly shows that the respondent is gainfully employed as private teacher and is earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. On the contrary there is no plausible evidence on record to the effect that petitioner is earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m., though, from document Ex. D/5 it transpires that monthly income of the petitioner per the certificate was around Rs. 3563/-. The sum paid towards leave encashment, shown in this certificate, cannot said to be monthly income of the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is having an aged mother.
Considering the fact that the respondent is earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. as a private teacher, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself.
The provisions of Section 125 of 'The Code' aim at preventing vagrancy . In the instant case despite the fact that respondent is in a position to maintain herself and is gainfully employed in the private school, learned trial Court has awarded maintenance in her favour. Thus, the impugned order, being against the evidence on record, suffers from pervarsity and therefore, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.37/2000
17/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.3 Swarn Singh before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 25/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1054/2001 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Matter is listed today with regard to non appearance of Shafee Shah. Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.1 Shafee Shah for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed on 15/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.817/2002 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.3- Pangala for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.208/2004 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent- Bhagirath @ Rajesh for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.553/2006 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.2 Sanwarlal before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 27/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.920/2006 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for fixed date to keep present appellant Prahlad Singh before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 22/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.814/2011 17/01/2017 Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant/State. None for the respondents.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.3-Vinod for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.663/2012 17/01/2017 Ms. Poorva Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on IA No. 242/2017, an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 Keshar Bai on record, who reportedly has expired on 25/11/2015.
On payment of process fee within a week, notice be issued on IA No. 242/2017 to proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1- Keshar Bai, returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.173/2013 17/01/2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report notice has been served upon the respondent, however, none appears on his behalf.
By way of indulgence, case is adjourned. Be listed after four weeks.
IR to continue, till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1802/2013 17/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.1 Bharat @ Bharatsingh before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 02/03/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.825/2014 17/01/2017 None for the appellants.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.4-Zakir Hussain for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.959/2014 17/01/2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State. Bailable warrant issued against appellant Dharmendra has been returned with a note that he is not residing his usual place of residence.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant- Dharmendra for securing his presence before this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.71/2011 17/01/2017 Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 502/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant Raju@ Raghuveer on 26/09/2016 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 absence of the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 502/2017 is allowed and the applicant Raju@ Raghuveer absence on 26/09/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant Raju@ Raghuveer is present before this Court.
The applicant Raju@ Raghuveer is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1285/1999
17/01/2017
Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 300/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant Ditu @ Chhitu on 06/01/2017 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 absence of the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 300/2017 is allowed and the applicant Ditu @ Chhitu absence on 06/01/2017 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant Ditu @ Chhitu is present before this Court.
The applicant Ditu @ Chhitu is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.428/2017
17/01/2017
Shri V.P. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'The Code') against order dated 15/11/2016 passed by XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision Nos. 786/2016, 787/2016 and 788/2016, which have been disposed of by a common order.
Vide the impugned order learned revisional Court has declined to interefere in order dated 29/09/2016 passed by learned Magistrate in three different matters bearing Criminal Case Nos. 42718/2014, 42717/2014 and 42719/2014.
Learned Magistrate, vide the three different orders, had rejected the application(s) submitted on behalf of the petitioner under Section 219 of 'The Code' praying for joint trial of three complaint cases, registered for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiabele Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'The NI Act') on the basis of three private complaint preferred against the petitioner by three different complainants.
Though, the learned Magistrate was of the view that Section 219 of 'The Code' is not applicable in cases under Section 138 of 'The NI Act', however, the learned revisional Court took the view that Section 219 of 'The Code' is applicable in respect of cases under Section 138 of 'The NI Act' but concurred with the dismissal of application(s) on the ground that the complainants are different persons in all the three cases and that Section 219 of 'The Code' conferes a discretion on the Court to hold joint trial with regard to three offences committed within a period of 12 months together and that the provisions are not of mandatory nature. Impugned order as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate have been challenged before this Court on the ground that in each case the petitioner shall be required to disclose his defence and if the three cases are tried separately then disclosure of defence in one case may prejudice him in other cases.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Section 219 of 'The Code', which is relevant for the present purpose, runs as under:
"219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence."
A bare persual of Section 219 of 'The Code' will reveal that it confers a discretion on the Court to jointly try three offences of the same kind if the same have been committed by the same accused within a period of one year. Section 219 of 'The Code' does not confer any right on the accused to be tried jointly, even if the offences are alleged to have been committed within a span of 1 year. Provisions of Section 219 of 'The Code' are to facilitate the Court in expeditious trial and to avoid duplicity, however, if the allegations are different, cause of action is different, the complainant is different, then joint trial of such offences though, committed within a period of one year, may not fulfil the desired objective.
The plea that the petitioners shall be prejudiced if the trials are conducted separately, because his defence will be disclosed, does not hold water because in each of the cases necessary requirements with regard to offence under Section 138 of 'The NI Act' shall have to seen on the basis of the evidence adduced in such case and the averments made in the complaint. Obviously, Section 219 of 'The Code' does not confer any right on the accused to be tried in a joint trial.
In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.374/2017
17/01/2017
Shri A.V. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR, however, criminal case number has not been mentioned in the petition and certain documents are not legible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file typed copies of those documents and to carry out necessary amendments in the petition with regard to criminal case number within a week.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.174/2017 17/01/2017 Shri A.M. Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri A.V. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
Learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 153(A) of the IPC, however, cognizance cannot be taken in absence of sanction in that regard.
Considering the aforesaid plea, proceedings with regard to ST No. 199/2016 pending before IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar are directed to be stayed till next date of hearing.
Be listed on 30/01/2017.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.1356/2016 17/01/2017 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays for and is granted two weeks time to collect the information as to whether the petitioner has surrendered or not?
Be listed on 31/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.1287/2016 17/01/2017 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he process fee has been paid by him.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report on respondent after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 17th January, 2017 17/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
25 Cr.R. No. None Ms. Shraddha Dixit Before
1356/2014 appropriate
Bench.
26 Cr.A. No. 854/2016 Shri Romil Malpani None After two weeks
20 Cr.A. No. Shri Atul Jain Shri Rahul After two weeks
1200/2007 Vijayvargiya
21 Cr.A. No. 176/2013 Shri Asif Warsi Shri Rahul After two weeks
Vijayvargiya
22 Cr.A. No. Shri G.S. Bhadoria Shri Rahul After two weeks
1077/2016 Vijayvargiya
29 Cr.R. No. Shri Akhilesh Shri Kshitij Vyas On 01/02/2017
1618/2016 Chaturvedi
39 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Apoorv Joshi Shri Kshitij Vyas After two weeks
221/2017
40 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Pawan Jaat None After two weeks
294/2017
41 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Kshitij Vyas After four weeks
328/2017
100 M.Cr.C. NO. Shri Ajay Mishra Shri Brijendra Gupta After three
544/2014 weeks
98 Cr.A. No. Shri Apoorv Joshi None After two weeks
1147/2013
85 Cr.A. No. 684/2014 None Shri Kshitij Vyas After a week
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
CRA No. 43/2017
17/01/2017
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Call for the record of the trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.174/2017, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants Rameshwar, Jagdish and Prakash for suspension of custodial sentence.
Each of the applicant has been convicted for offence under Sections 325 and 323/34 of the IPC and has been respectively sentenced to 1 years and 6 months R.I. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. It is further submitted that the appeal is likely to take time and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 174/2017 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall ramain 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 27/03/2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.311/2014 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for fixed date to keep present respondent No.4 Bhagwan Singh before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 16/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.801/2014 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.A. No. 821/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.821/2014 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep present appellant No.1 Chand Shah before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 16/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1119/2014 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.A. No. 1903/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1903/2014 16/01/2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
On payment of process fee within two week's with correct particulars notice be issued to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 & respondent No.8, returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1481/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1480/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1474/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1473/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1471/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1465/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1464/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1463/2014 16/01/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3 Dinesh for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.276/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.A. No. 1994/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1994/2014 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for fixed date to keep present appellant Keshu before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 27/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1522/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for fixed date to keep present appellant Banti @ Prakash before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 22/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.5556/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties prayed that matter be again referred to the mediator for mediation proceedings.
Prayer is granted.
In-charge High Court Mediation is requested to appoint mediator in the matter.
Parties shall remain present before mediator for medication on 20/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.5258/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties prayed that matter be again referred to the mediator for mediation proceedings.
Prayer is granted.
In-charge High Court Mediation is requested to appoint mediator in the matter.
Parties shall remain present before mediator for medication on 20/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7640/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties prayed that matter be again referred to the mediator for mediation proceedings.
Prayer is granted.
In-charge High Court Mediation is requested to appoint mediator in the matter.
Parties shall remain present before mediator for medication on 21/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7638/2015 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties prayed that matter be again referred to the mediator for mediation proceedings.
Prayer is granted.
In-charge High Court Mediation is requested to appoint mediator in the matter.
Parties shall remain present before mediator for medication on 21/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.314/2016 16/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant No.2 Shubhash for securing his presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.6823/2016 16/01/2017 Petitioner-Ms. Jyoti Soni present in person. None for the respondents.
Petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 03/01/2017, process fee has been deposited.
Office is directed to verify and proceed further.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.6826/2016 16/01/2017 Petitioner-Ms. Jyoti Soni present in person. None for the respondents.
Petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 03/01/2017, process fee has been deposited.
Office is directed to verify and proceed further.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12431/2016 16/01/2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.40/2017 16/01/2017 Shri Vijay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 284/2017, an application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the judgement dated 26/08/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
On due consideration IA No. 284/2017 is allowed. Accordingly, office objection with regard to filing of certified copy is hereby waived.
Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed thereafter for consideration of IA No. 266/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.985/2015
16/01/2017
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 455/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant on 13/01/2017 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 absence of the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 455/2017 is allowed and the applicant Chhagan absence on 13/01/2017 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant Chhagan is present before this Court.
The applicant Chhagan is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.879/2014
16/01/2017
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 452/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant on 13/09/2016 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 absence of the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 452/2017 is allowed and the applicant Rambharose absence on 13/09/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant Rambharose is present before this Court.
The applicant Rambharose is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.8386/2016
16/01/2017
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.10620/2016 16/01/2017 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been rendered infructuous, as petitioner has been released on bail.
Considering the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12744/2016 16/01/2017 Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed after three weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 16th January, 2017 16/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
58 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Harshwardhan None After two weeks
12888/2016 Pathak
56 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Neelesh Mrs. Mamta After three
11510/2016 Agrawal Shandilya weeks
55 M.Cr.C. No. Shri N.J. Dave Shri Devashish Singh After two weeks
11163/2016
54 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A.S. Rathore Mrs. Mamta After two weeks
10856/2016 Shandilya
53 M.Cr.C. No. Shri G.P. Singh None After two weeks
10829/2016
50 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A.S. Rathore Shri Lakhan Singh After two weeks
7352/2016
50/1 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A.S. Rathore Shri Lakhan Singh After two weeks
7355/2016
49 M.Cr.C. No. Shri H.Y. Mehta Shri Hitesh Sharma After a week
5468/2016
49/1 M.Cr.C. No. Shri H.Y. Mehta Shri Praveer Porwal After a week
5482/2016
49/2 M.Cr.C. No. Shri H.Y. Mehta None After a week
5487/2016
49/3 M.Cr.C. No. Shri H.Y. Mehta Shri Gaurav Singh After a week
5488/2016
49/4 M.Cr.C. No. Shri H.Y. Mehta Shri N.S. Bhati After a week
5490/2016
48 M.Cr.C. No. Mrs. Mamta Shri Vikas Yadav After three
3445/2016 Shandilya weeks
47 Cr.A. No. Shri Shashank Mrs. Mamta After two weeks
1811/2016 Shrivasava Shandilya
84 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1355/2015
84/1 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1356/2015
84/2 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1357/2015
84/3 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1358/2015
84/4 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1359/2015
84/5 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1360/2015
84/6 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1361/2015
84/7 Cr.A. No. None Shri N.K. Patni After two weeks
1366/2015
124 Cr.A. No. Shri Rajesh Yadav Shri Mukesh After two weeks
1800/2016 Kumawat
123 Cr.A. No. Shri Akash Jadav Shri Mukesh Before
1765/2016 Kumawat appropriate
Bench
122 Cr.R. No. Shri Vivek Sharan Shri Mukesh After a week
1622/2016 Kumawat
121 Cr.R. No. Shri Vikas Yadav Shri Mukesh After two weeks
1480/2016 Kumawat
120 Cr.A. No. 348/2016 Shri A.S. Solanki Shri Mukesh After two weeks
Kumawat
116 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Hemant Purohit Shri Mukesh After two weeks
3789/2015 Kumawat
116/1 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Shahid Sheikh Shri Hemant Purohit After two weeks
2264/2016
113 Cr.A. No. 873/2015 None Shri Mukesh After six weeks
Kumawat
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.4/2017
16/01/2017
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.45/2017 16/01/2017 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.158/2017 16/01/2017 Shri Praveer Porbal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Call for the record of the trial Court.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt CRA No. 547/2016 13/01/2017 Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prasanna Bhatnagar, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.203/2017, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant No.1 Mithun @ Ravi for suspension of custodial sentence.
The applicant No.1 has been found guilty for offence under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC, for causing dowry death of her wife-Poonam, and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that applications for suspension of custodial sentence of applicant No.2 Leela Bai and applicant No.3 Mukesh have already been allowed by this Court. Inviting attention of this Court to para No. 17 of the impugned judgement, it is submitted that Kusum Bai, who is the mother of the deceased Poonam, has not stated that petitioner was subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment, therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. It is further submitted that hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of suspension of custodial sentence.
After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record including the impugned judgement, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of custodial sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 203/2017 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the applicant No.1 Mithun @ Ravi in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall ramain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The applicant No.1 Mithun @ Ravi after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 22/03/2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(S.C.
Sharma) (Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge Judge
skt
M.Cr.C. No.85/2017
13/01/2017
Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent, returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt CRA No. 24/2017 13/01/2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.90/2017, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.
The appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC while the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 have been convicted under Section 323/34 of the IPC and each has been sentenced to 9 months R.I. and to pay fine with usual clause.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. It is further submitted that the appeal is likely to take time and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 90/2017 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall ramain 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 22/03/2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.43/2017 13/01/2017 Shri Harish Gilke, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'The Code') praying for restoration of M.Cr.C. No. 12184/2016, which came to be dismissed because of non compliance of peremptory order dated 05/12/2016.
M.Cr.C. No. 12184/2016 was filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against the respondent in a complaint case. Vide order dated 05/12/2016 the petitioner was directed to pay the PF within a week, failing which the petition was liable to be dismissed without further reference to the Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to oversight case could not be marked and therefore, the order of this Court could not be complied.
An affidavit sworn by Shri Harish Gilke, learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter, has been filed in support of the averments made in the petition.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and M.Cr.C. No. 12184/2016 is restored to its original number subject to deposit of cost of Rs.250/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and submission of the acknowledgement of payment before the Registry of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.12923/2016
13/01/2017
Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of fresh process fee within a week, notice be issued to respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Till the next date of hearing, learned trial Court will not pass any final order in this case.
Be listed after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No. 223 Of 2017 13.01.2017 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner- Diwan, who has been arrested on 26/12/2016 in Crime No.348/2016 of Police Station-Meghnagar, Distt. Jhabua, concerning offence under Section 379 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Matter relates to alleged theft of about 4-5 tones 'Manganese Ore', which got spilled on the road while being carried in A.R.Fero Alloy Company's dumper bearing registration No. MP-45- HO-263. It is further alleged that the ore lying on the road was collected and taken by the petitioner in a tractor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. It is further submitted there is no apprehension that petitioner will flee away from the course of justice, if released on bail.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the allegation against petitioner and other surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No. 247 Of 2017 13.01.2017 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner- Amar Singh, who has been arrested on 15/07/2016 in Crime No.752/2016 of Police Station-Rajgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Biaora) concerning offence under Sections 294,323, 302 and 506/34 of the IPC. Matter relates to alleged murder of one Baje Singh.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. As per prosecution case, on 11/12/2016 a dispute occurred between deceased-Baje Singh on one side and Harisingh, Santosh Bai and Amar Singh on the other side because of installation of bore-well in the well. It is further alleged that during the incident, Hari Singh and Santosh Bai pelted stones on the deceased while petitioner-Amar Singh assaulted him by kicks and fists. As per MLC report no external injury was found. On 12/12/2016 Baje Singh complained of pain and vomiting, therefore, he was taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where during treatment he died on 18/12/2016 due to 'Septicemic Shock'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted deceased- Baje Singh by kicks and fists. As per postmortem report deceased- Baje Singh died due to 'Septicemic Shock'.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the role attributed to the petitioner and other surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.252/2017 13/01/2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Kuldeep @ Nanu, who has been arrested by Police on 26/09/2016 in Crime No. 621/2016, Police Station Kotwali District-Jhabua, in connection with offences under Sections 363,366(A) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years was enticed away by the present petitioner and taken to Morabi, Gujrat . It is further alleged that prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the petitioner .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the case-diary statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and has submitted that prosecutirx has improved the material facts in her subsequent statement to the effect that she was forcibly taken by the petitioner, however, in her earlier statement, she had deposed that she is having acquintance with the petitioner and she was enticed away .
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix has travelled to different places with the petitioner by different modes of transport and throuhout she was having opportunity to leave the company of the petitioner and to complain about alleged enticement to police or other authorities, however, she has not resorted to any such course which prima-facie indicates towards her consenting behaviour.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.750/2016
13/01/2017
Shri Prakash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.278/2017 13/01/2017 Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Vinod, who has been arrested by Police on 22/12/2016 in Crime No.799/2016, Police Station Excise Circle, Mhow, District- Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 34(1)(A) and 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 60 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.263/2017
13/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.230/2017 13/01/2017 Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Kanhaiyalal, who has been arrested by Police on 26/12/2016 in Crime No.132/2016, Police Station Excise Department, Sardarpur, District- Dhar, in connection with offence under Sections 34(1)(K) and 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 54 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.218/2017
12/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 13th January, 2017 13/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No applicants; respondent/ State dates . petitioner(s);
appellant(s) 23 MCRC No. 213/2017 Shri H. Thakur Shri R.S. Parmar After a week 27 MCRC No. 234/2017 Shri Rizwan Khan Shri P. Wadhwani After two weeks 28 MCRC. No.243/2017 Shri Pranay Joshi Shri P. Wadhwani After a week 32 MCRC No.268/2017 Shri Anupam Shri P. Wadhwani After a week Chouhan 34 CRR No. 1237/2016 Shri D.M. Pagir Shri P. Wadhwani After four weeks 54 MCRC No. Shri Praveer Porwal Shri Pankaj After four weeks 12844/2016 Wadhwani 53 MCRC No. Shri Rizwan Khan Shri Pankaj After three 12730/2016 Wadhwani weeks 52 MCRC No. Shri Apporv Joshi Shri Pankaj After two weeks 12709/2016 Wadhwani 61 MCRC No. 76/2017 None None After four weeks 62 MCRC No. 82/2017 Shri Ravindra Shri Pankaj After two weeks Upadhyay Wadhwani Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.120/2017
13/01/2017
Shri V.P. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.112/1999 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.111/1999 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.596/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.581/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.552/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.246/2000 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.524/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.508/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.435/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.421/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.412/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.404/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.387/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.384/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.500/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.311/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.187/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt FA No.131/1998 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.103/1997 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.57/1997 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No.75/1994 12/01/2017 Case called up, but non appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt SA No. 343/1984 12/01/2017 Case called up, but none appears for the parties. Matter is adjourned by way of indulgence. It be retained in the list of final heaing.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 12th January, 2017 12/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No applicants; respondent/ State dates . petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
3 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Akash Rathi Shri Pankaj List in the next
12761/2016 Wadhwani week.
5 Cr.R. No. 1226/2016 None None List after two
weeks
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.7485/2016
12/01/2017
Shri P.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Upendra Singh Chandrawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashment of FIR concerning Crime No. 21/2016 registered at police Station Lalghati, District Shajapur, for offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
After arguing the matter at length, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under law including prayer for anticipatory bail.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12412/2016 11/01/2017 Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent/State. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail by petitioner-Laad Singh S/o Hindu Singh, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No.354/2016 Police Station Maksi, District Shajapur concerning offence(s) under Sections 323,294,506,366 and 376(D)/34 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Crime No. 354/2016 has been registered on the basis of report lodged by the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, wherein it is alleged that she was raped by Goverdhan, Nirbhay Singh, Gyan Singh, Antar Singh, Laad Singh S/o Maan Singh and two other persons.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co- accused Laad Singh S/o Maan Singh in his disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has implicated the petitioner, though, the prosecutrix herself has not alleged anything in the FIR in that regard.
Though, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension for arrest in the matter without considering the plausible ground.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case, the petitioner- Laad Singh S/o Hindu Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.9929/2016 11/01/2017 Shri K.P. Gangore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Santosh, who has been arrested by Police on 27/06/2016 in Crime No. 142/2014, Police Station Badgonda District-Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 409, 420, 467,468 and 471/120-B of the IPC .
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, on his transfer from Gram Panchayat Godar Teh. Depalpur to Gram Panchayat Avlay as Panchayat Secretary, had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4.50 Lacs on various dates, which was misutilised by him in the sense that the amount sanctioned for construction of school building on Govt. land under 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' was used by him for construction of school on private land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the various annexures filed alongwith the petition and submitted that petitioner had joined at Gram Panchayat Avlay as Panchayat Secretary and was having authority alongwith the Sarpanch to sign over the cheque and withdraw money from the account of Gram Panchayat, Avlay, pursuant to which aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the account of Gram Panchayat, Avlay for construction of school building. Of course, there may be some fault on his part as regards allegation that he had used this amount for construction of school building on private land instead of Govt. land. However, there is no allegation against petitioner about appropriating govt. funds for personal purpose.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and that t here is no apprehension that, on being released on bail, the petitioner shall escape away from the course of justice .
Learned counsel for the State has fairly considered that the allegation against petitioner is that he had withdrawn the aforesaid money from the account of Gram Panchayat, Alvay and used it for construction of school building on private land.
Considering the factual matrix of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.5799/2016
11/01/2017
Shri A.K. Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent, though duly served. By way of indulgence, matter is adjourned. Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.5570/2016 11/01/2017 None for the petitioner.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.4637/2016 11/01/2017 None for the petitioner.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.4624/2016 11/01/2017 Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent, though duly served. By way of indulgence matter is adjourned. Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.3727/2016 11/01/2017 Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10900/2016, an application seeking leave of this Court to implead complainant as respondent No.3.
On due consideration, IA No. 10900/2016 is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the petition within a week.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.1649/2015 11/01/2017 Shri Sanjay Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Stiphen, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2, though duly served. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file certified copy of the relevant documents.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7541/2015 11/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.R. No. 725/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7537/2015 11/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.R. No. 725/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7378/2015 11/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.R. No. 725/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.865/2014 11/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed alongwith Cr.R. No. 725/2014.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.R. No.725/2014 11/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that petition for quashment of procedings bearing M.Cr.C. No. 1539/2013 was preferred by the complainant, which later on was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10/01/2014. It is submitted that reference about the aforesaid matter has not been made in the present petition. Therefore, facts have been suppressed in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days time to bring this facts on record.
Be listed on 16/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.274/2017 11/01/2017 Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Office is directed to list the matter alongwith record of M.Cr.C. No. 1806/2016 after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.267/2017 11/01/2017 Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to collect the information regarding status of the trial in the cases, which were transferred.
Be listed on 18/11/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12089/2016 11/01/2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt MCRC No.199/2017 11/01/2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Arun @ Guddu, who has been arrested by Police on 15/12/2016 in Crime No. 111/2016, Police Station Dahi District-Dhar, in connection with offence under Sections 363,366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, prosecutrix, aged about 17 years was enticed by the present petitioner and taken to Naveli, from Naveli to Ratlam, Ratlam to Khargone and from Khargone to Rajgarh . It is further alleged that prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the petitioner .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has deposed that she accompanied the petitioner on her own accord and was having physical relations with him at her own violation.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.35/2017
11/01/2017
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Rangu, who has been arrested by Police on 21/08/2016 in Crime No. 245/2016, Police Station Bajna District-Ratlam, in connection with offence under Sections 363,366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, prosecutrix, aged about 15 1/2 years was enticed by the present petitioner and taken to Ratangarh. It is further alleged that prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the petitioner .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she deposed that she had accompanied the petitioner on her own accord and that the petioner has done nothing with her.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.13275/2016
11/01/2017
Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Goverdhan Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 18/12/2016 in Crime No.642/2016, Police Station Makdon, District- Ujjain, in connection with offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 54 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.13254/2016
11/01/2017
Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Jagdish, who has been arrested by Police on 1812/2016 in Crime No.609/2016, Police Station Excise Circle Rajmohalla, District- Indore, in connection with offence under Section 34(1)(A) & 34(2) M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Allegedly, 54 bulk litres of country made liquor liqour was seized from the possession possession of the present petitioner for which he was not having any valid license.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has been completed and a charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and that no criminal antecedents are attributable to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has not disputed the aforesaid position and has further not disputed that no criminal antecedents with regard to offence(s) under M.P. Excise Act, are attributable to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.208/2017
11/01/2017
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned senior counsel with Shri Arvind Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Manish Nair, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Chand Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 28/12/2016 in Crime No. 20/2016, Police Station Crime Branch District-Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,471, 417/120-B of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. As per prosecution, a request was received by the petitioner via E-mail from one Kenneth Stone, who claimed himself to be Unit Manager, Sanoh Manufacturing Limited U.K., for making travel arrangements including booking of air tickets etc. for as many as 83 travellers. It is further alleged that the petitioner, who is working as H & R Manager of STI Sanoh India, having office at Gurgaon and Dewas, forwarded this E-mail to complainant T.K. Jos, proprietor of Jos Travels, Indore, pursuant to which, the complainant's travel agency had arranged air tickets etc. for 83 persons involving expenditure of around Rs.1 crore.
It is further alleged that subsequently, it was revealed that the person, who impersonated himself as Kenneth Stone, is not a real person and that the E-mail purported to be in his name was sent from a fake ID to defraud not only the petitioner but also the complainant-travelling agency.
It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that complainant has also realized that he as well as the petitioner were cheated by the person, who sent a fake E-mail personating himself as Kenneth Stone. Shri Manish Nair, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted in this regard that the complainant is not having any objection as regards grant of bail.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the factual matrix of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13207/2016
11/01/2017
Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with a prayer that trial Court may be requested to conclude the trial within a period of 3 months because the petitioner is in custody since 02/07/2016.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 11th January, 2017 11/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
30 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Vikas Rathi Shri Pankaj List after a week
13171/2016 Wadhwani
31 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Vikas Rathi Shri Pankaj List after a week
13197/2016 Wadhwani
35 M.Cr.C. No. 23/2017 Shri Ritesh Inani Shri Pankaj List after a week
Wadhwani
36 M.Cr.C. No. 26/2017 Shri Jitendra Bajpai Shri Pankaj List in the next
Wadhwani week
38 M.Cr.C. No. 61/2017 Shri T.Z. Warsi Shri Pankaj List after a week
Wadhwani
39 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Rakesh Vyas Shri Pankaj List after a week
162/2017 Wadhwani
40 M.Cr.C. No. Shri N.J. Dave Shri Pankaj List after two
167/2017 Wadhwani weeks
41 M.Cr.C. No. Shri S. Patidar Shri Pankaj List after a week
182/2017 Wadhwani
42 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after two
189/2017 Wadhwani weeks
44 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Rahul Sharma Shri Pankaj List after a week
201/2017 Wadhwani
46 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after a week
210/2017 Wadhwani
47 Cr.A. No. 83/2016 Shri Umesh Sharma Shri Pankaj List after two
Wadhwani weeks
109 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Piyush Shri Pankaj List after three
6675/2015 Shrivastava Wadhwani weeks
110 M.Cr.C. No. Shri N.J. Dave Shri Pankaj List after three
8182/2015 Wadhwani weeks
111 M.Cr.C. No. None None List after four
8642/2015 weeks
112 M.Cr.C. No. None Ms. Pooja Jain List after four
10996/2015 weeks
113 M.Cr.C. No. None None List after four
11294/2015 weeks
114 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Pankaj None List after two
11318/2015 Wadhwani weeks
115 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Anupam List after four
1537/2016 Chouhan weeks
116 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Lokendra Joshi Ms. Kirti Patwardhan List after three
2415/2016 weeks
117 M.Cr.C. No. Ms. Sangeeta Parsai None List after two
3602/2016 weeks
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/Case-diary/cure the defects/file the documents.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.143/2017
10/01/2017
Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to collect the documents, which were relied upon by the complainant/objector with regard to closure report.
Till the next date of hearing no coerecive action be taken against the petitioner by police.
Be listed on 18/01/2017.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.13029/2016 10/01/2017 Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of fresh process fee within two week notice be issued to respondents. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 10th January, 2017 10/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
53 M.Cr.C. No. None None List after four
13089/2016 weeks
54 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after four
13128/2016 Wadhwani weeks
55 M.Cr.C. No. Shri M.A. Mansoori Shri Pankaj List after two
13136/2016 Wadhwani weeks
57 M.Cr.C. No. Shri A.K. Saraswat Shri Pankaj List after four
13251/2016 Wadhwani weeks
58 M.Cr.C. No. 28/2017 Shri Pankaj Jain Shri Pankaj List after a week
Wadhwani
59 M.Cr.C. No. 29/2017 None Shri Pankaj List after four
Wadhwani weeks
60 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after four
141/2017 Wadhwani weeks
62 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Vishal Verma Shri Pankaj List on
194/2017 Wadhwani 18/01/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/cure the defects.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.49/2017
10/01/2017
Shri N.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Vipin, who has been arrested by Police on 16/08/2016 in Crime No. 62/2016, Police Station Kaitha District-Ujjain, in connection with offence under Sections 408, 418,420/34,409,467,468 and 471 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. It is alleged that one Manoj Raniwal, co-accused in the case, in the capacity of the secretary of the 'Mahakal Shiksha Prachar Samiti', village Laxmipura, acted in an arbitrary manner and in gross violation of the Rules and Regulations had misappropriated the funds of the school. It is further alleged that he collected fees from the students and their parents in an unauthorized manner and thereby indulged in misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs. The allegation against petitioner is that he was part of the illegal deed committed by the co-accused Manoj Raniwal and throughout helped him in commission of the aforesaid offence.
It is submittd by the learned counsel for the petitioner that principal accused Manoj Raniwal has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22/12/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10590/2016, therefore, petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the fact that main accused Manoj Raniwal has already been granted bail and that the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.46/2017
10/01/2017
Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Sukhram, who has been arrested by Police on 21/11/2016 in Crime No. 338/2016, Police Station Gandhwani District-Dhar, in connection with offence under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, prosecutrix, aged about 16 1/2 years was threatened and assaulted by the petitioner and forcibly taken from Gandhwani, Dhar to Gujrat. It is further alleged that prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the petitioner and kept in confinement for about 20 days.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix has travelled to different places with the petitioner by different modes of transport and throuhout she was having opportunity to leave the company of the petitioner and to complaint about alleged enticement to police or other authorities, however, she has not resorted to any such course which prima-facie indicates towards her consenting behaviour.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.20/2017
10/01/2017
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. This is a repeat(second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Raju Bai, who has been arrested by Police on 20/06/2016 in Crime No. 614/2016, Police Station Alote District-Ratlam, in connection with offence under Sections 363,366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 506,313,315,318, 302,201, 120-B/34 of the IPC and Section 5J(II), 5(L), 5(N)/6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. Allegedly, prosecutrix aged about 14 years was subjected to rape while she was alone in her house. As per prosecution she conceived because of the sexual assault and at an advance stage of pregnancy was taken by accused Bhanwarlal to the Hospital of petitioner's husband Dayaram. It is further alleged that Dayaram administered certain injuctions to the prosecutrix, while the present petitioner administered some medicinal pills to carry out abortion resulting in birth of a still borne child.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of prosecutrix (P.W.1), her father (P.W.2) and her mother (P.W.3), who have been examined during trial in ST No. 172/2016, pending before the Court of IInd Addtional Sessions Judge, Ratlam. It is submitted that none of the aforesaid witnesses has spoken anything about complicity of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that certain articles were also seized pursuant to the disclosure made by the petitioner including medicinal pills and injections, which were administered to the prosecutrix, however, considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that star witnesses have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the complicity of the petitioner, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, she shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that she shall make herself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13311/2016
10/01/2017
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.13309/2016 10/01/2017 Shri Vivek Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, leaned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to collect the information regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
Matter be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No. 11135 OF 2016 09.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-Babu Khan, who has been arrested by the police on 29/03/2016 in Crime No.625/2016 of Police Station-Sitamau, Distt. Mandsaur concerning offences under Section 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Matter relates to alleged murder of Monin-brother of the co-accused Akram. Dead-body of Momin was recovered from a well . In MLC report death was reported on account of drowning. The allegation is that co-accused Akram, Mujib @ Mujim and petitioner-Babu Khan hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of Momin. The accusation against the petitioner is based on the disclosure said to have been made by co-accused Akram & Mujib @ Mujim, however, there is no other incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1070/2012
09/01/2017
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State. Heard on IA No. 10952/2016, an application for condonation of absence of appellants Dhansingh and Bhairam on 07/12/2016 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 absence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No. 10952/2016 is allowed and absence on 07/12/2016 of the appellants Dhansingh & Bhairam is hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the appellants informs that appeallants are already marking their presence before the Registry of this Court.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.919/2014
09/01/2017
None for the appellant.
On furnishing process-fee within two weeks alongwith correct particulars, bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued to secure the presence of the respondent/Amit.
Matter be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1948/2014 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks alongwith service report.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.6432/2014 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
On payment of fresh process fee within two weeks with correct particulars notice be issued to respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.287/2015 09/01/2017 Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent. As bail papers executed by the respondent have been received, therefore, the direction to furnish certified copy of the relevant order sheet is hereby waived.
Appeal is already admitted on 20/10/2015. Be listed in due course.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1489/2015 09/01/2017 None for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant vide order dated 07/10/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7511/2015.
In view thereof this appeal is admitted for final hearing. Let the record of the court below be re quisitioned. Be listed in due course.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.1893/2015 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 1656/2015.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.95/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondents Vishal and Prakashchandra for securing their presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.268/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10687/2016, an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. & IA No. 10688/2016, an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Let the appellant be summoned from the concerning jail for his appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Registry on 19/01/2017.
Complainant is also directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Registry on 19/01/2017 for verification of compromise.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.738/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for fixed date to keep present appellants Bapulal @ Bapu & Heeralal @ Heera before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 15/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1672/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed on 16/01/2017 with Criminal Appeal No. 1609/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1700/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed on 16/01/2017 with Criminal Appeal No. 1609/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1713/2016 09/01/2017 Parties through their counsel.
Be listed on 16/01/2017 with Criminal Appeal No. 1609/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.1609/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Learned public prosecutor for respondent/State prays for and is granted a week's time to comply with direction issued by this Court vide order dated 02/01/2017.
Be listed on 16/01/2017 with other connected matters.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.9606/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashment of FIR concerning Crime No. 61/2014 registered at police Station Dewas Gate, District Ujjain, for offence under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and under Sections 420, 465, 467,468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.
The quashment is sought on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused Baljinder Singh & Shravan Singh, who have been acquitted in the matter by learned Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide judgement dated 08/04/2015 passed in ST No. 61/2014 .
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the disclosure statement said to have been made by co-accused Baljinder Singh and has submitted that accusation against the petitioner is based solely on the disclosure statement made by Baljinder Singh to the effect that vehicle in question in which contraband liquor was being carried, was to be handed over to the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid there is no legaly admissible evidence against the petitioner.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that, so far, charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner. It is furher submitted that considering the nature of material available with regard to complicity of the petitioner, the Investigating Agency may itself is required to consider as to whether sufficient grounds are not made out to file charge-sheet, however, that stage is not yet arrived, therefore, it will be premature to quash the FIR at this stage. Lastly it is submitted that if, ultimately, charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner can knock the doors of this Court by way of appropriate petition.
Taking into consideration that a decision with regard to filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner is yet to be taken by the Investigating Agency, at this stage, it would not be proper to quash the FIR of crime No. 61/2014. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8924/2016 09/01/2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8031/2016, whereby petitioner-husband has prayed for stay of order dated 24/08/2016 passed by JMFC, Dewas, which was upheld in appeal vide order dated 29/08/2016 (the impugned order) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal No. 3800274/2016.
Vide order dated 24/08/2016, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month for 8 years old daughter and Rs. 4,000/- per month for respondent-wife, after adjusting Rs. 3,000/- per month already ordered to be paid as maintenance by Family Court. Learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to handover the custody of their daughter Anmai to the respondent. In appeal the learned Appellate Court declined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure A/3, which is a copy of order dated 01/03/2016 passed by learned Magistrate recording wishes of minor girl (Aged about 8 years) who had expressed to stay with the petitioner-father, who is already having her custody.
Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to continue with the custody of his minor daughter till the matter is decided on merits and to that extent, operation of the impugned order is hereby stayed.
As regards maintenance, because the minor daughter will remain in the custody of petitioner, therefore, he will not be liable to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent as regards minor daughter. However, as regards respondent, he will pay maintenance as per the impugned order @ Rs. 4,000/- per month after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month, already ordered by the family Court to be paid, towards maintenance to the respondent.
IA No. 8031/2016 stands disposed of accordingly. IA No. 10280/2016, an application for vacating stay also stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Matter be listed for consideration of IA No. 9722/2016 after three weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8131/2016 09/01/2017 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Laweyr for petitioner /State. Shri Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. State has preferred this petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against judgment dated 11/05/2016 rendered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, District Ujjain, in Criminal Case No. 363/2011, whereby acquittal has been recorded in respect of respondent-Nitin Sharma with regard to offence under Section 292 of the IPC, primarily on the ground that electronic record/electronic evidence which was required to be proved by submitting a certificate in terms of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, was not adduced in evidence before the Court.
The law is well settled that the secondary evidence with regard to electronic record or for that matter the electronic documents can be admitted, as provided in Section 65-A of the Indian Evidence Act, only on furnishing of a certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. However, in the instant case the same was not adduced before the learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the State has also not disputed that no certificate was adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court.
In the aforesaid premises no fault can be found with the impugned order recording acquittal in favour of the respondent. Therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8052/2016 09/01/2017 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Laweyr for petitioner /State. There is a blank space in para 1 and para 4 of the IA No. 9442/2016, an application for condonation of delay.
Learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted two week's time to rectify the error.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.7607/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two week's time collect the information regarding latest status report of trial.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.13078/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Vilas Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time collect the latest status report of trial.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12922/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and is granted a week's time to verify the affidavit file by the applicant.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12841/2016 09/01/2017 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for analogous hearing with M.Cr.C. No. 12800/2016.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed after a week alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 12800/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.11566/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file affidavit in support of this petition.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.10678/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of Court order dated 22/12/2016 he has carried out the necessary amendments in the cause title of the petition.
Office is directed to register this petition as criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is directed to comply with Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No. 10463 OF 2016 09.01.2017 Shri Imran Bangash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-Nitesh, who has been arrested by the police on 14/09/2016 in Crime No.11/2016 of Police Station-Narcotics Cell, Distt. Indore concerning offences under Section 8/22 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is alleged that 9gm of 'alprazolam' tablet was recovered from the possession of one Sohail. It is further alleged that on interrogation Sohail made a disclosure statement that he procured/purchased the contrabad from the present petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the disclosure statement of the Sohail, there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the aforesaid crime.
Learned Govt. Advocate has not disputed with the factual position. Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13260/2016
09/01/2017
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file the affidavit in support of this bail application.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.12232/2016
09/01/2017
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12266/2016 09/01/2017 Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12634/2016 09/01/2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Matter notified on the Board dated 09th January, 2017 09/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
16 M.Cr.C. No. Shri S.K. Verma Shri Pankaj List after a week
12092/2016 Wadhwani
19 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Kaushal Shri Pankaj List on
12558/2016 Sisodiya Wadhwani 18/01/2017
15 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Kaushal Shri Pankaj List on
12040/2016 Sisodiya Wadhwani 18/01/2017
13 M.Cr.C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after two
11497/2016 Wadhwani weeks
12 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Vikas Jain Shri Pankaj List after two
11267/2016 Wadhwani weeks
11 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Apoorva Joshi Shri Pankaj List after a week
10920/2016 Wadhwani
10 M.Cr. C. No. None Shri Pankaj List after a week
10830/2016 Wadhwani
7 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Nitin Vyas Shri Pankaj List after two
10402/2016 Wadhwani weeks
79 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Ramesh Yadav Shri Mukesh List after four
8084/2016 Kumawat weeks
82 M.Cr.C. No. Ms. Bhagyashree Shri R.S. Parmar List after four
9240/2016 Sugandhi weeks
83 M.Cr. 9376/2016 Shri K.P. Singh Shri R.S. Parmar List after three
weeks
85 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Anand Soni Shri R.S. Parmar List in the next
9826/2016 week
132 Cr.R. No. 733/2016 Shri S.Tuteja Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
/2
132 Cr.R. No. 658/2016 Shri MA Bohra Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
/1
132 Cr.R. No. 656/2016 Shri MA Bohra Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
131 Cr.A. No. 273/2016 Shri R.S. Parmar None List after two
weeks
125 SA No. 199/2015 Shri M.K. Jain Shri B.L. Jain List after four
weeks
124 Cr.A. No. 121/2015 Shri B.S. Rathore Shri R.S. Parmar List after three
weeks
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/cure the defects.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.10472/2016
03/01/2017
Shri M.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short 'The Code') praying for transfer of MJC No. 06/2007 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Khachrod, District Ujjain, (Shri Suresh Singh Jamra) to any other Court outside Khachrod.
MJC No. 06/2007, has been registered on the basis of petition preferred by respondent-Smt. Rami Bai, wife of the petitioner, under Section 125(3) of 'The Code' for recovery of interim maintenance granted in her favour.
The petitioner preferred an application under Section 410 of 'The Code' before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ujjain, praying for transfer of MJC No. 31/2013 and MJC No. 06/2007 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Khachrod, District Ujjain, (Shri Suresh Singh Jamra) to any other Court outside Khachrod on the ground that all the Judges posted at Khachrod are prejudiced against him, hence, he reasonably apprehends that justice will not be done to him.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain vide order dated 16/12/2014 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the application holding that earlier on a request made by the petitioner MJC No. 06/2007 was transferred from the Court of JMFC Khachrod (Shri S.R. Sinam ) to the Court of JMFC Khachrod (Shri Suresh Singh Jamra) . The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate further found that allegation made by the petitioner that all the Judges posted at Khachrod are prejudiced against him is baseless.
Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 26/10/2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 32/2015 declined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 407 of 'The Code'.
From the record it clearly transpires that pursuant to prayer made by the petitioner, MJC No. 06/2007 was transferred from the Court of JMFC Khachrod (Shri S.R. Sinam) to the Court of JMFC Khachrod (Shri Suresh Singh Jamra). The prayer for transferring MJC No. 06/2007 outside the Khachrod was made on the ground that all the Judges posted at Khachrod are prejudiced against him. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this regard appears to be totally baseless. Simply because certain orders have been passed by the learned Magistrate in recovery proceedings against the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the concerning learned Magistrate is prejudiced against the petitioner or that all the Judicial Officers posted at Khachrod are prejudiced against him.
The grounds putforth by the petitioner for transfer of MJC No. 06/2007 outside the Khachrod are based on general and omnibus allegations. From the record it transpires that petition for maintenance preferred under Section 125 of 'The Code' is yet to be decided finally and that even the recovery proceedings for interim maintenance are going at a slow pace.
In view of the aforesaid no plausable ground is made out to transfer MJC No. 06/2007 outside Khacrod, therefore, this petition, sans merits, deserves to be and is accordingly, hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 11402 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-Salkiya @ Saligram, who has been arrested by police on 24/07/2016 in Crime No.472/2016 of Police Station-Dhamnod, Distt. Dhar, concerning offences under Sections 302,201 & 120-B/34 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Matter relates to alleged murder of Mukesh and Jitu, who were put to death sometime between 20/07/2016 to 21/07/2016. As per prosecution, deceased Jitu was working as driver of the truck bearing registration No. MH- 18-AA-9415 belonging to complainant Shreyansh Jain. Co-accused Lokesh and Mukesh were also employed as co-driver & cleaner of the truck respectively. All the three left with the vehicle on 20/07/2016 and thereafter, Mukesh and Jitu both were found dead.
It is alleged that Lokesh has hatched a conspiracy alongwith Chhotu, Bablu, Deepak, Pappu and petitioner Salkiya @ Saligram to commit robbery of the goods loaded in the truck and in that process Mukesh and Jitu were put to death.
Accusation against the petitioner is based on the disclosure statement said to have been made by the co-accused Lokesh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Mukesh and Jitu, apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused Lokesh; prima-facie, this evidence is not legally admissible, as on the basis of his statement no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.12418/2016 06/01/2017 Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent No.2 on merit as well as on IA No. 10612/2016, an application for stay. Notice be made returnaable within six weeks.
List thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Matter notified on the Board dated 06th January, 2017 06/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No. applicants; respondent/ State dates petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
35 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Apoorva Joshi Shri R.S. Parmar List after two
12801/2016 weeks
34 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Mitesh Patidar Shri R.S. Parmar List in the next
12770/2016 week
32 M.Cr.C. No. Shri N.J. Dave Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
12738/2016
30 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Apoorva Joshi Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
12714/2016
91 Cr.A. No. 971/2016 None None List after four
weeks
75 Cr.A. No. 635/2006 None Shri Pankaj List after three
Wadhwani weeks
74 Cr.A.No. 937/2005 None Shri Pankaj List after four
Wadhwani weeks
73 Cr.A. No. 165/2011 None Shri Pankaj List after four
Wadhwani weeks
72 M.Cr.C. No. None None List after four
3455/2016 weeks
71 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Anupam None List in the next
10131/2013 Chouhan week
185 M.Cr.C. No. Ms. Rekha None List after two
5961/2016 Shrivastava weeks
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/cure the defects.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.8980/2013
06/01/2017
None for the petitioner.
As per office report defects have not been cured. By way of indulgence two week's time is granted to the petitioner to cure the defects, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.8979/2013 06/01/2017 None for the petitioner.
As per office report defects have not been cured. By way of indulgence two week's time is granted to the petitioner to cure the defects, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt Cr.A. No.263/2014 06/01/2017 None for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned Govt. Advocate informs that factum of death of appellant No.1 Anita has been verified and as per the report received from Police Station Manasa District Neemuch appellant No.1 Anita has expired on 28/07/2016.
In view of the aforesaid this appeal stands abated as regards appellant No.1 Anita and will continue for appellant No.2 Jyoti.
List the appeal in due course.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.493/2014
06/01/2017
Parties through their counel.
As per office report appellant Uddya @ Udiya is detained in District Jail Barwani.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant Uddya @ Udiya to secure his presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1604/2014
06/01/2017
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for appellant/State Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7433/2016, an application seeking exemption from filing power on behalf of the respondent on the ground that he is confined in Ludhiyana Jail.
After due consideration IA No. 7433/2016 is allowed. Further heard learned counel for the parties on IA No. 7434/2016, whreby respondent has prayed for extension of time to furnish bail/personal bond.
On due consideration, IA No. 7434/2016 is allowed. Respondent Baljinder Singh is directed to execute bail/personal bond as per order dated 30/09/2014 till 15/02/2017.
He is also directed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 27/02/2017 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1918/2014
06/01/2017
None for he appellants.
Shri Santosh Pandey, learned counsel for the surety. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant Nos. 1 & 2 has been returned unserved with a report that for past 1 ½ years they are not residing at their usual place of residence.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant Nos. 1 & 2 for securing their presence .
Learned counsel for the surety prays for and is granted time to file the reply of show cause notice.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.112/2015
06/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent Raklesh for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.492/2015
06/01/2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of appellant Gautam Thakur has been return unserved with a report from SHO Pardeshipura Indore that he is not available at his usual place of residence and despite all serious efforts he could not be arrested.
Custodial sentence imposed against appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 15/09/2015 subject to condition that he will regularly appear before this Court. As the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the order of suspension, therefore, suspension order dated 15/09/2015 is hereby recalled.
Learned trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant by correcive means and send him back to jail for serving out his remaining part of jail sentence.
Appeal is already admitted for final hearing. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.567/2015
06/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Bheru for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1021/2015
06/01/2017
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks alongwith service report of non-bailable warrant of appellants.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1377/2015
06/01/2017
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks alongwith service report of bailable warrant of respondent.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1420/2015
06/01/2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against petitioner to secure his presence before this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.1035/2016 06/01/2017 Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for petitioner/State. Learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and is granted two weeks time to pay the process fee.
List thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1158/2016
06/01/2017
Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 8072/2016, an application for condonation of delay. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
List thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1262/2016
06/01/2017
None for the petitioner.
In absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned. List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1100/2013
06/01/2017
Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10319/2016, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant Raju Jadhav on 06/09/2016 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 absence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No. 10319/2016 is allowed and the appellant Raju Jadhav absence on 06/09/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Raju Jadhav is present before this Court.
The appellant Raju Jadhav is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.62/2010
06/01/2017
Shri Ramesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 113/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant No.1 Vikas Verma on 05/11/2016 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 absence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No. 113/2017 is allowed and the appellant No.1 Vikas Verma absence on 05/11/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No.1 Vikas Verma is present before this Court.
The appellant No.1 Vikas Verma is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12766 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-Yunus Rangrej, who has been arrested on 01/06/2016 in Crime No.394/2016 of Police Station-D.D. Nagar, Distt. Ratlam concerning offences under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is alleged that 160gm of alprazolam powder was recovered from the possession of the Arjun Singh. As per prosecution, Arjun Singh in his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has revealed that he procured this contraband substance from applicant Yunus.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the disclosure statement of the Arjun Singh, there is no other material available on record to connect the petitioner with the aforesaid offence.
In this regard learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State has submitted that petitioner in his disclosure statement had also disclosed that he procured the aforesaid contraband substance from Govind Bagri, who is still absconding.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12719 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner- Rais Khan, who has been arrested on 02/12/2016 in Crime No.596/2016 of Police Station-Shujalpur, Distt. Shajapur concerning offences under Sections 323,506 & 307/34 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Allegedly, on 29/11/2016 at around 10:00 a.m. Shahrukh Shah, Tahir, Nasir & petitioner Rais had assaulted Ashiq Khan. It is further alleged that during the incident Shahrukh Shah dealt with a knife blow on the abdomen of Ashiq Khan and that remaining three persons namely Tahir, Nasir and petitioner Rais had assaulted him by kicks and fists.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation with regard to causing knife injury over abdomen of Ashiq Khan is against Shahrukh Shah and that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted Ashiq Khan by kicks and fists. It is further submitted that only one injury on the right epigestric region has been found by the Doctor.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the role attributed to the petitioner and other surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12637 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned senior counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner - Wasim @ Ranjan, who has been arrested on 20/11/2016 in Crime No.461/2016 of Police Station-Kannod, Distt. Dewas concerning offences under Sections 450,354(A) & 305 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is alleged that on 06/11/2016 at around 4:00-5:00 a.m. when the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was in her 'Bada', the petitioner went there and caught hold of her; in the meantime grand-mother of the prosecutrix came there and saw the petitioner running away from the spot. As per the prosecution story, on the same day, prosecutrix poured kerosene oil upon herself and set herself on fire leading to death.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the MLC of the prosecutrix conducted on 06/11/2016, wherein she has allegedly, stated that she sustained burn injuries as kerosene lamp fell upon her. In the dying declaration recorded on 06/11/2016, she again stated that kerosene oil lamp fell upon her while she was preparing tea for her grand-mother and because of that she caught fired.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against petitioner that he had outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix has come for the first time on 20/11/2016, when the statements of the mother, grand-mother of the prosecutrix and other persons were recorded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid premises, the allegation with regard to outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix by the petitioner becomes highly doubtful.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, it is not disputed that alleged incident took place on 06/11/2016 and on the same day, dying declaration of the prosecutrix was recorded, wherein she has not made any allegation against petitioner regarding outraging her modesty. After 14 days of the alleged incident, this story comes for the first time, when the statements of the mother and grand-mother were recorded on 20/11/2016.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12669 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner - Dinesh Bheel, who has been arrested on 28/10/2016 in Crime No.46/2008 of Police Station-Bagli, Distt. Dewas concerning offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471/34 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Allegedly, agricultural land of various farmers was acquired by the Govt. under 'Sardar Sarovar Project'. The persons whose land was acquired were provided with a rehabilitation package under which they were given option to purchase land at a suitable place for which the money was to be paid by the Govt. . It is alleged that as many 999 forged sale-deeds were executed in order to obtain the rehabilitation package by various persons in favour of those whose land was acquired. As regards the petitioner, it is alleged that he was attesting witness of one of the sale-deeds executed in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical situation, this Court, vide order dated 22/12/2016 in M.Cr.C. No. 12666/2016 and order dated 29/12/2016 in M.Cr.C. No. 12671/2016, had granted bail to the present petitioner, hence, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Though, prayer for bail is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No. 12637 OF 2016
06.01.2017
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned senior counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner - Wasim @ Ranjan, who has been arrested on 20/11/2016 in Crime No.461/2016 of Police Station-Kannod, Distt. Dewas concerning offences under Sections 450,354(A) & 305 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is alleged that on 06/11/2016 at around 4:00-5:00 a.m. when the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was in her 'Bada', the petitioner went there and caught hold of her; in the meantime grand-mother of the prosecutrix came there and she saw that the petitioner running away from the spot. As per the prosecution story, on the same day, prosecutrix poured kerosene oil upon herself and set her on fire leading to death.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the MLC of the prosecutrix conducted on 06/11/2016, wherein she has allegedly , stated that she sustained burn injuries as kerosene fell upon her. In the dying declaration recorded on 06/11/2016, wherein she again stated that kerosene oil lamp fell upon her while she was preparing tea for her grand-mother and because of that she caught fired.
The allegation against petitioner for outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix have come for the first time on 20/11/2016, when the statement of the mother, grand-mother and other persons were recorded. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid terms, the allegation with regard to outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix by the petitioner becomes highly doubtful.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, it is not disputed that alleged incident took place on 06/11/2016 and on the same day, dying declaration of the prosecutrix was recorded, wherein she has not made any allegation against petitioner regarding outraging her modesty. After 14 days of the alleged incident, this story comes first time, when the statement of the mother and grand-mother were recorded on 20/11/2016.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he will make himself available to the Police, as and when required, in the course of investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.11845/2016
04/01/2017
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner- Govind Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 28/07/2016 in Crime No. 13/2016, Police Station Kalapipal District-Shajapur, in connection with offence under Sections 409,420, 467 & 468 of the IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.
Matter relates to embezzlement of Rs.23,09,251/-. The petitioner was working as Manager of 'Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Aagkhedi Branch Khokharkala'. Allegedely, in an audit inspection it was found that during 2013 to 2015, the petitioner has withdrawn huge sums in the name of other persons; apart this, the money received by him on behalf of the Society was not credited to the account of the society. A detailed chart was submitted by the Enquiry Officer of District Cooperative Central Bank, Shajapur showing each and every transaction made by the petitioner, pursuant to which this case has been registered against him.
The material available on record, prima-facie, clearly indicates towards the complicity of the present petitioner in embezzlement of huge sum of money to the tune of about Rs.23 Lacs.
In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.966/2012
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counel for the appellantS prays for fixed date for personal appearance of appellant No.2 Anand before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 06/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1431/2015
04/01/2017
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
Be listed after a week for consideration of report received from CJM, Ratlam.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.179/2013
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counel for the appellant prays for fixed date for personal appearance of appellant Satyanarayan before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 08/02/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1018/2014
04/01/2017
Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Satyanarayan could not appear before the Registry of this Court on 02/01/2017 due to some unavoidable reasons. He also informs that today appellant Satyanarayan is present before this Court.
Appellant Satyanarayan is directed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant is at liberty to file an application for condonation of absence of appellant Satyanarayan on 02/01/2017.
Be listed on 18/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.155/2012
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Perusal of communication dated 03/09/2016 received from Special Judge SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajgarh (Bioara), reveals that proceedings against surety for recovery of surety amount are in progress.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant Lakhbeer Singh for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after six weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1371/2010
04/01/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application for condonation of absence of appellant, however, affidavit in support thereof has not been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant is granted time to file the same within a period of one week.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1838/2014
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant Jitendra Mukhi for his appearance before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.688/2012
04/01/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, case is adjourned. Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.357/2000
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State further prays for and is granted two weeks time to verify the health status of the appellant No.1 Subhadrabai.
Be listed after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1482/2015
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counel for the appellant prays for fixed date for personal appearance of appellant Pappu Mansuri before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 18/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.664/2004
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counel for the appellants prays for fixed date for personal appearance of appellants Bhawla & Keru before the Registry of this Court.
Prayer is granted.
Be listed on 07/07/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1529/2014
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Subhash for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1462/2012
04/01/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Ashok Kumar Sharma for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.113/2011
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Sawant Singh for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.528/2006
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Devilal for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1049/2011
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Shyam for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.829/2011
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Tejulal for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1458/2011
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant Hanuman for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after six weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.7997/2012
04/01/2017
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for petitioner/State. None for the respondents.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against respondent No.2 Jalam Singh for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
Be listed after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.11679/2016
04/01/2017
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to collect information with regard to criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
List after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.11863/2016
04/01/2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.11910/2016
04/01/2017
Shri Yogesh Bajad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Rahul, who has been arrested by Police on 09/08/2016 in Crime No. 279/2016, Police Station Aerodrum District-Indore, in connection with offence under Sections 363,366 & 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5L/6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.
Allegedly, prosecutrix aged about 16 years was enticed away by present petitioner and taken to Dewas. It is also alleged that she was subjected to rape by the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the proseuctrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she deposed that she on her own accord went with the petitioner and entered into marriage with him.
Though, the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the allegation made against petitioner in the instant case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.11751/2016
04/01/2017
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.11908/2016
04/01/2017
Shri N. J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel lawyer for respondent/State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1649/2015
04/01/2017
Shri Sachin Tenguria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Aayushman Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 98/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the petitioner Rajendra Singh on 22/09/2016 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 absence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No. 98/2017 is allowed and the petitioner absence on 22/09/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitoner Rajendra Singh is present before this Court.
The Petitioner Rajendra Singh is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1113/2014
04/01/2017
Smt. Nirmala Kulhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10914/2016, an application for condonation of absence of the petitioner Pawan on 06/12/2016 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 absence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, IA No. 10914/2016 is allowed and the petitioner absence on 06/12/2016 is hereby condoned.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitoner Pawan is present before this Court.
The Petitioner Pawan is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1411/2016
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted week's time to file the salary certificate regarding his income.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1272/2015
04/01/2017
None for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time on 03/01/2017 to argue the matter & today he is not appeared before this Court to argue the matter.
By way of indulgence matter is adjourned. Be listed on 06/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1307/2015
04/01/2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against petitioner No.1 Darbar for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.728/2015
04/01/2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent . Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1396/2016
04/01/2017
Shri A.K. Kanthed, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of process fee within a week notice be issued to respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 9658/2016, an application for condonation of delay. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
Be listed thereafter.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
CRA No.339/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1662/2016, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant - Barka.
The appellant- Barka has been convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and has been sentenced to under go 5 years RI with fine & usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail since 18/12/2014. It is further submitted that medical evidence suffers from serious anomalies and learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence while recording the conviction against appellant. It is also submitted that the appeal is likely to take time and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence and has invited the attention of this Court to testimony of Khanda(P.W.1) as well as of Dr. Vijay Bhaisare (P.W.11) who had examined the injured on 13/11/2014.
On perusal of the record it is found that though there is anomaly regarding the weapon used for inflicting the injury on the right eye of Khanda (P.W.1), however, as per Dr. Vijay Bhaisare (P.W.11) he found internal injury on his right eye and lead to total lost eye sight . Therefore, patient was advised to go for treatment to Delhi.
Considering the nature of injury said to have been sustained by Khanda(P.W.1) in the opinion of this Court the anomaly with regard to the nature of weapon used to inflict the injury cannot by itself a ground to suspend the custodial sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, this application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1116/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') is directed against order dated 20/06/2016 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch in Case No. 66/2015, whereby he has been directed to pay interim maintenance under Section 125 of The Code @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to respondent-wife.
Impugned order is challenged on the ground that same is not according to the evidence on record. It is submitted that quantum of the maintenance is on higher side and the petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. It is also submitted that the respondent has left her matrimonial home on her own accord without any reason, therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay the maintenance.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The object behind grant of maintenance to wife and the yard- stick to be applied to decide the quantum of maintenance as well as the sustainability of the plea raised by the husband that he does not have means to pay, have been considered at length by the apex Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases,
705. Considering in the light of the aforesaid dictum of law, it is clear that the petitioner being an able bodied person cannot be allowed to wriggle out of his legal, social and moral responsibilities to pay reasonable amount for maintenance to respondent-wife. In the prevailing inflationary situation, an amount of Rs.2000/- p.m., as interim maintenance allowance for respondent-wife cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable nor the petitioner can escape away from his liability to pay reasonable amount of maintenance simply on the ground that he has a low income. Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order suffers from any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition, sans merits, deserves to be and is accordingly, hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.9737/2013
02/01/2017
Shri R.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the reply of the petition.
List after three weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.894/2013
02/01/2017
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Learned counsel for the State further prays for and is granted two weeks time to verify the factum of death of petitioner No.2-Devi Singh.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.441/2013
02/01/2017
None for the petitioner.
Shri Mohan Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent. Office is directed to list the revision after two weeks alongwith status report in terms of order dated 25/11/2016.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.880/2012
02/01/2017
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent /State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and by way of indulgence is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.318/2008
02/01/2017
Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file appropriate application for condonation of non-appearance of petitioner Jasbeer Singh.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.671/2007
02/01/2017
None for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Let bailable warrant of Rs. 25,000/- be issued against appellant Mujjafar @ Bhayyu for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.865/2006
02/01/2017
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for appellant/State. None for the respondents.
Let bailable warrant of Rs. 25,000/- be issued against respondent No.3 Rajesh for securing his presence before the Registry of this Court.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1350/2002
02/01/2017
None for the parties.
Office is directed to list the revision after three weeks alongwith execution report of bailable warrant issued against respondent No.2-Rasia.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.934/2015
02/01/2017
Shri R.K. Laad, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent, though duly served. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits today he has filed an IA No. 7/2017, an application seeking permission for D.N.A. test.
Office is directed to take IA No. 7/2017 on record. In absence of the learned counsel for the respondent, case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.10703/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for petitioner/State. Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file documents with regard to current status of the trial in connection with FIR dated 28/08/2016 lodged by the complainant.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.R. No.1148/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Akshay Kelapure, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 11212/2016, an application for amendment in the petition.
On due consideration IA No. 11212/2016 is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the petition within a week.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.342/2013
02/01/2017
Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant Gopal on 22/12/2016.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the absence of the appellant.
Accordingly, IA No. 23/2017 is hereby allowed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant Gopal is present before this Court.
Appellant Gopal is directed to mark his presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Cr.A. No.1211/2012
02/01/2017
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 27/2017, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant No.2 Manju on 25/11/2016.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the absence of the appellant.
Accordingly, IA No. 27/2017 is hereby allowed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.2 Manju is present before this Court.
Appellant No.2 Manju is directed to mark her presence today and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.13188/2016
02/01/2017
Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Vijay Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 14/12/2016 in Crime No. 756/2016, Police Station Rajgarh District-Rajgarh (Biaora), in connection with offence under Sections 279,337, 338 & 304 of the IPC and Sections 184, 192 and 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.
As per prosecution, private passenger bus bearing registration No. M.P. 09/FA-2067, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Jagdish Tanwar, met with an accident, in which as many as 15 persons died.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in this case as he is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle . It is not the case of prosecution that at the relevant time petitioner was driving or was in control of the vehicle or was directly responsible for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
Though, the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the allegation made against petitioner in the instant case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.13163/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already supplied the copy to the Income Tax Department.
In absence of the learned counsel for the respondent, case is adjourned.
List on 03/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.12594/2016
02/01/2017
Shri P.S. Gehlot, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
MCRC No.11568/2016
02/01/2017
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Vijay, who has been arrested by Police on 02/10/2016 in Crime No. 466/2016, Police Station Manakchwok District-Ratlam, in connection with offence under Sections 363 & 366/120-B of the IPC and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.
Allegedly, prosecutrix aged about 16 years, was enticed away by one Umesh and taken from Ratlam to Jabra and thereafter to Neemuch.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein prosecutrix has not made any allegation against present petitioner. Apart this no active role is attributed to the present petitioner.
Though, the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the allegation made against petitioner in the instant case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
CC as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.11309/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew the prayer after recording evidence of the injured person.
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty .
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.9929/2016
02/01/2017
Shri J.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for 3 days time to produce the medical report of the petitioner.
By way of last opportunity time is accepted. Be listed on 06/01/2017.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.9863/2016
02/01/2017
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a week's time to collect status regarding progress of trial in the matter.
Be listed after a week.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
M.Cr.C. No.9782/2016
02/01/2017
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .
Prayer is granted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge
Matter notified on the Board dated 02nd January, 2017 02/01/2017 COMMON ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 S. Case No. Advocate for the Advocate for the List on the No applicants; respondent/ State dates . petitioner(s);
appellant(s)
15 M.Cr.C. No. Shri K.K. Tiwari Shri Pankaj List after a week
10957/2016 Wadhwani
17 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Nilesh Agrawal Shri Pankaj List after a
11428/2016 Wadhwani week.
18 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Anshul Shri Pankaj List in the next
11566/2016 Shrivastava Wadhwani week
20 M.Cr.C. No. Shri N.J. Dave Shri Pankaj List after two
12031/2016 Wadhwani weeks
21 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Tarun Kushwah Shri Pankaj List after a week
12078/2016 Wadhwani
22 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Syam Patidar Shri Pankaj List after a week
12089/2016 Wadhwani
23 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Gaurav Verma Shri Pankaj List after a week
12126/2016 Wadhwani
25 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Bhagwan Singh Shri Pankaj List after a week
12920/2016 Wadhwani
26 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Sanjay Sharma Shri Pankaj List after two
12962/2016 Wadhwani days
29 M.Cr.C. No. Shri K.K. Tiwari Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
13199/2016
30 M.Cr.C. No. Shri Shahid Sheikh Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
13207/2016
31 M.Cr.C. No. Shri K. Malya Shri R.S. Parmar List after a week
13209/2016
89 Cr.R. No. 1184/2016 Shri S.K. Meena Shri M.K. List after two
Vijayvargiya weeks
90 Cr.R. No. 1422/2016 None None List after four
weeks
92 Cr.R. No. 1009/2014 Ms. Ishita Agrawal None List after two
months
93 Cr.R. No. 929/2015 None Shri Apporva Joshi List after four
weeks
95 Cr.R. No. 317/2016 Shri M.A. Mansoori None List after a week
96 Cr.R. No. 1430/2016 Shri Prateek Shri Pankaj List after two
Maheshwari Wadhwani weeks
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant (s)/appellant(s) prays for and is granted time to argue the matter/call for the record/cure the defects.
List on the date/as per direction shown in column No.5 against the respective case.
(Ved Prakash Sharma)
skt Judge