Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1015 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2010

Dr Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2018

6 Criminal Revision No.850/2017 (Dr. Sandeep Vs. State of M.P.) conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

Smt.Ariti Sharma@Laxmi Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2020

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28062/2020 (Smt.Aarti Sharma alias Laxmi Mishra Vs. State of M.P.) In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that she is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach her place of residence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V Mishra - Full Document

Mukesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2020

9. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.14662/2020 (Mukesh Yadav vs. State of M.P.) be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, District Vidisha who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Javed Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2020

8. ,rn~ }kjk ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 5 ikS/kksa dk ¼ Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok uhe@ihiy½ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV ÅWaps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk gksxsaA rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xh A o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C.No.13798/2020 (Javed Khan Vs. State of M.P.) la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k ^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds lqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ Application stands allowed and disposed of. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Dr. Anoop Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 November, 2017

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner is posted at District Hospital, Morena (M.P.) on the post of Medical Specialist having charge of various other programmes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents have done monitoring in this regard for the period of 01/01/2013 to 16/03/2015. On 07/01/2014, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner wherein the allegations have been levelled that the petitioner was not present on duty time, was not giving sufficient time to OPD and not attending patients while he attended the patients at home resulting in deprivation of the medical facilities to the 2 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) patients at the hospital. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply wherein he explained his conduct and refuted the charges. After receiving the reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 21/07/2014 (Annexure P-2). Being aggrieved appeal was preferred.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Chhabra vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 November, 2013

3. Against the impugned order of framing of the charge, revisionists have filed the revision petition assailing the said order stating that the order is not proper, legal and correct. The only arguments of the revisionists' is HC Virender was the beat constable and everybody knew him and the whole CR No. 87/13 Page No. 3 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State story of the prosecution as he was sent as decoy customer is nothing but a concocted story. Trial court had made observation that this fact can be taken on later stage is a wrong observation because it is admitted fact that the HC Virender was sent as decoy customer as well as he used to sign the register when checked in the hotel.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2018

It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately the members of the husband's family are roped in casually, mentioning their names and contents disclose their active involvement. Under these circumstances, it would result in abuse of judicial process. Following the law laid down in the cases of Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported as 2010 (7) SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. & another reported as 2012 (10) SCC 741, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.CR.C. No.-15844-2018 (MUKESH YADAV Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) M.CR.C. No.-15179-2018 (SMT. MANISHA YADAV Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 5 the petition filed by Smt. Manisha Yadav M.Cr.C. No. 15179/2018 is allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Sood vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2018

Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.2.2013 whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to claim Samman Nidhi under the provisions of Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddh Vyakti), Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner has been held entitled to such honorarium with effect from the date of the order passed by the Collector in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012 amending the 2008 Rules and substituting the earlier sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 wherein the date of entitlement was mentioned as 1.4.2008 with effect from the date of the order passed by the District Magistrate/State Government. It is petitioner's contention that this amendment is prospective and not retrospective. Petitioner's case was already pending consideration before the authorities and they had not considered it properly, as result petitioner who had made his first application on 4.8.2008 as is contained in Annexure P/5 but that was turned down by the District Magistrate, Guna vide order dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P/6) and approved by the State Government vide order dated 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1491/2014 (Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) 24.7.2010, had filed Writ Petition No.6303/2010 which has been decided by the High Court on 19.6.2012. The High Court after considering various provisions contained in the Rules of 2008 held that annexures denying Samman Nidhi to the petitioner i.e. the order of the Collector and order of the State have not been passed after due and proper application of mind. Consequently, it had set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Collector to examine the case and pass a fresh order within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The High Court had also observed that authority shall not only pass a reasoned and speaking order but if the authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the Samman Nidhi, the same be paid to him from due date forthwith.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Salim Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2020

Once it was found that deceased-Dhapu Bai and present appellant-Salim Khan knew each other and they were in regular contact with each other on their mobile phones and on 27.02.2015 there was unusually high frequency of contact and 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7964 OF 2019 (Salim Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh) on the very same day, Dhapu Bai went missing, the burden was upon the appellant-Salim Khan under Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 to show that as to how he came in possession of mobile set of deceased-Dhapu Bai, this burden has not been discharged by the present appellant. This aspect has been considered in para 24 of judgment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - S Shukla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next