Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.04 seconds)

Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2019

In order to look into the payments pertaining to 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Basant Trading Corporation, the complainants opened up a account in the HDFC Bank at Badwah and received a 50 pages cheque book. The complainant gave cheque leaves from 000004 to 000015 to Manoj Bansal, these cheques were blank cheques carrying signatures of complainant Pramod Bansal, rest of the cheque leaves which were from 000001 to 000003 and from 000016 to rest of the cheque leaves were kept by the complainant. Some of the cheques given by complainant to applicant-Manoj Bansal were used for payments. The cheque leaves bearing Nos.000010 to 000015 had remained with Manoj Bansal regarding which he intimated to the complainant through a letter that he had destroyed those cheque leaves but Manoj Bansal infact had not destroyed those 5-6 cheque leaves and thereafter conspired with Ashwini Modi, a relative of Manoj and complainants who had financial dispute with the complainants-Pramod and Vinod Bansal and in furtherance of this conspiracy, Manoj Bansal handed over the cheque leave bearing 000014 to Ashwini Kumar. This cheque leave as already stated was already signed by one of the complainant and Ashwini Kumar wrote a figure of Rs.1,34,40,625/- on this cheque leave and presented the same for encashment which was got dishonoured by the Bank leading to institution of a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The complainants state that they had lodged 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Shukla - Full Document

Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2017

Learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is a case of attempt to enter in the public service that too for the police department on the basis of fraud by adopting false means. Bail granted in case of Ramavtar(supra) has been granted in the facts and circumstances of that case. Facts of the case in hand are distinguishable, therefore, parity cannot be claimed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramavtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2019

(RAMAVTAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 26 Gwalior, Dated : 28-11-2019 Shir Vijay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for appellant No.2. Shri M.S. Rawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I.A.No.9548/19, an application for temporary suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No.2-Munshi to enable him to attend the 13th day ceremony of his father is taken up and considered.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Nagu - Full Document
1   2 Next