Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 614 (0.63 seconds)

Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2020

It is submitted that complainant Deepak owned land bearing survey Nos.532/11 and 532/12 at Sanawad, adjacent to which the land of the family members of the present 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. NO.27514/2020 (Manish vs State of Madhya Pradesh) applicant bearing survey Nos.531/1, 531/3 and 531/4 are situated. The complainant had alleged that while he was constructing his boundary wall on his land, but present applicant along with co-accused Vijay dismantled 24 pillars of the boundary wall, causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It was submitted by the complainant that Vijay has instituted a revenue case before SDM in which false description regarding the land was given and Vijay had executed forged documents.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Shukla - Full Document

Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2018

11. On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been 7 Cr.R.No. 3865/2017 Manish Vs. State of M.P. written by the deceased Rahul Jain, it is apparent that the appllicant and co-accused Mukesh had extorted lacs of rupees from him and he had nothing remained and they threatened to kill him. From the suicide note, it does not appear that the applicant had harassed the deceased to extort money. The allegation made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicate that the applicant by positive act on his part incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC will be nothing, but exercise in futility .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish vs State Of M.P. on 16 March, 2021

(v) the applicant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from time-to-time in the matter 6 M.Cr.C. No.5862 of 2021 (Manish Vs. State of MP) of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Arya - Full Document

Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2019

The Medical Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Phoop, District Bhind will observe the conduct of the MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ( Cr.R.No.4135/2019) (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) petitioner Manish and if any aberration and departure from any normal conduct is observed then he shall immediately report the same to District Judge, Bhind who will take care of the situation and in case the Superintendent of Community Health Centre finds any act of petitioner contrary to the interest of the patients then he shall immediately stop the visit of petitioner and would report to this Court about his conduct which may dis-entitle him from the benefit of bail granted by this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Noor Hussain Khan & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 26 March, 2010

In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find that any part of the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Munger or any consequences of offence ensued there. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another, Bhura Ram and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another, and Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Another has held that offence under Section 498 A of I.P.C. cannot be termed as a continuing offence, so as to confer -8- jurisdiction to a court within whose jurisdiction no part of the offence was committed.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next