SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajave Textiles Private Ltd. vs Sourabh Biotech Throuh Sanjay … on 1 November, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5527/2018
(Shivnarayan Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:01/11/2018
Shri C.K. Patne, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukta.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.4704/2018-this is
first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
Appellant No.2-Shyamlal has been convicted for the offence
punishable under
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2-
Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, who was working
as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora. Learned counsel for the
applicants submitted that the prosecution is unable to adduced any
evidence to establish the motive for receipt of illegal gratification
and demand made by appellant No.2-Shyamlal, which is Sine-quo-
non for fastening the criminal liability upon the accused under the
provisions of
Anti Corruption Act. He further submits that besides the
complainant, the prosecution has not examined any other independent
witness for establishing the demand made by the appellant No.2 for
illegal gratification, therefore, the conviction of the appellant No.2 by
learned trial Court is wholly unwarranted. Although, the learned trial
Court has relied upon the transcript of tape recorder, recording
allegedly the voice of the appellants and complainant-Lakhan for
proving the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant No.2,
however, the tape recorded transcript cannot at all be considered to be
an admissible piece of evidence against the appellants because
provision of
Section 65(B) of the IT Act has not complied with. It is
further submitted that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial
and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and the appellant No.2 cannot be
kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, this appeal filed by him may
turn infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Custodial
sentence of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, has already been suspended
by this Court, vide order dated 01/10/2018. Under these
circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail to appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Lokayukta opposed the application by contending that
appellant No.2-Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan,
who was working as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora and made a
demand of Rs.4,000/- for conducting the partition and mutation in
respect of land owned by him. When complainant and trap party
reached at the house of Patwari-Shivnarayan, he was not present there
and appellant No.2-Shyamlal has taken Rs.4,000/- from the
complainant on behalf of his father and at that time he was caught red
handed by the trap party. The documents relating to mutation
proceedings were also seized from the possession of appellant No.2-
Shaymalal and transcript of tape regarding conversation between the
present appellant and complainant in respect of demand of
gratification amount is also available on record, therefore, there is
sufficient material available on record to prove guilt against the
appellant No.2. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of
the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that being the son of Patwari, appellant No.2-
Shyamlal received gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant
and he was caught red handed by the trap party on the spot, therefore,
he is also involved in the alleged offence. Resultantly, IA No.
7404/2018 is hereby dismissed. If the appeal is not decided in near
future, then the appellant No.2 is at liberty to move fresh application
for suspension of his remaining custodial sentence.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar
Tiwari
Date: 2018.11.02 10:52:56 +05’30’
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.34282/2018x
Indore dated :01/11/2018
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6885/2018, an application
for interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
complaint cases against the applicants under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khargone.
During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
on record.
From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
are mentioned in it and the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6885/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2494/2015
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
till next date of hearing.
List 18/12/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.34264/2018
Indore dated :01/11/2018
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6884/2018, an application
for interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
complaint cases against the applicants under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khargone.
During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
on record.
From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
are mentioned in it and the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6884/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2492/2015
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
till next date of hearing.
List 18/12/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.C.C. No.966/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Shashank Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ravi Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3.
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that today the arguing
counsel is not available to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for time
to argue the matter.
Praye is allowed.
Matter be listed in the week commencing 19/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43406/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after four weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17983/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week’s
time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
respondent No.2.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37173/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week’s
time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
respondent No.2.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37666/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet alongwith statements
of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial Court.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38965/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State is directed to
make available the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38450/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38452/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38447/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
38454/2018 after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34067/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4966/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to file the copy of the charge-sheet.
List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.182/2004
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Welsingh received
unserved with the report that appellant-Welsingh is detained in District
Jail, Jhabua for offence punishable under Sections 34 and 36 of the M.P.
Excise Act.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Welsingh for
securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.
List on 19/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.409/2006
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Service report of perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.-2
Pyari is still awaited.
Office is directed to call report from S.H.O., Police-Station-
Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh regarding the efforts made by him for
executing the perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.2-Pyari.
List the matter on 17/12/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.408/2012
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Service report of non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-
Shravan @ Janu is still awaited.
Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the
week commencing 26/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 707/2013
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant-Salim has received
unserved with the report that he is not found on given address.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant -Salim
to secure his presence before this Court on 12/12/2018.
Let notice be issued against surety of appellant -Salim, why his
surety amount may not be forefeited.
List on 12/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1853/2014
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks for consideration of IA No. 2797/2018, an
application for bail cancellation.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.596/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants further prays for time to keep
present appellant No.1-Yogesh before this Court.
By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
List on 15/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.634/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed the
death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of death
of appellant NO.3-Kaushal Singh and submits its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List on 17/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.783/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
As per the report received from the Station House Officer, Police-
Station-Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), appellant No.2-Sadaji S/o
Madhuji has died on 02/10/2017.
Considering the aforesaid report and copy of death certificate of
appellant No.2-Sadaji, this appeal stands dismissed as abated regarding
appellant No.2-Sadaji.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of
appellant No.2 from the array of the appellants within 7 working days.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.808/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
As per the report received from Superintendent of Central Jail,
Indore, appellant-Umashanker @ Daddu S/o Fakirchandra Parihar has
died on 06/08/2016.
Considering the aforesaid report, this appeal stands dismissed as
abated.
Let record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned trial
Court.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
There is a report regarding non-bailable
warrant issued against the sole appellant Prabhulal stating
that the appellant has died. There is a copy of the death
certificate duly verified by the Thana Prabhari, police station
Pachore, District Rajgarh.
Considering the report and the death certificate, I find
that the present appeal shall stand abated and is, therefore,
dismissed as such.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.12/2016
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant further prays for time to keep
present appellant-Deva @ Devisingh before this Court.
By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
List on 27/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1520/2016
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Non-bailable bailable issued against respondent-Mansoor Bhai
has received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
address.
Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against respondent-Mansoor
Bhai to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
List on 18/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 708/2017
Indore, Dated:31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 6801/2018, an application for listing the case on
any working Saturday or for final hearing in weekly list.
Office is directed to examine the matter and if it comes under
caption “High Court Expedited Cases” or any other suitable caption of
priority cases, whichever is earlier, then same shall be listed for final
hearing on any working Saturday.
With the aforesaid direction IA No. 6801/2018 stands disposed of.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 718/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant No.1-Vikram has
received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
address.
Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against appellant No.1-
Vikram to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
Let notice be issued against surety of appellant No.1-Vikram, why
his surety amount may not be forefeited.
List on 18/12/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.719/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the State/EOW.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 7609/2018, an application for stay
on the conviction passed by the trial Court.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.808/2017
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
entered into compromise with the complainant and they have filed IA No.
19176/2017, an application under
Section 320 read with Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence.
Aforesaid application shall be considered at the time of final hearing
of the appeal.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 311/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 671/2018, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 12 days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the
conviction the appellant was sent to the jail, therefore, he could not
contact to his counsel, hence, this appeal could not be filed within
stipulated time period.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
delay of 12 days in preferring this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.671/2018 is allowed and delay of 12 days in
filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the court below be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.519/2014
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7573/2018,
repeat(third) application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.1-Rajendra Thakur
@ Raees Khan.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission to withdraw IA No. 7573/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.7573/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.703/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Cr.A. Nos.
607/2015 and 762/2015 are wrongly connected with the present appeal.
Office is directed to verify the same and delink the present appeal
from Cr.A. Nos. 607/2015 and 762/2015.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.762/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two months.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.607/2015
Indore dated :31/10/2018
None for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two months.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41857/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary
alongwith the statement of witnesses recorded during the enquiry of
Merg No. 05/2018 registered at Police-Station-Nalkheda, District-Agar
(Malwa) by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41621/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri N.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40839/2018
(Yogesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.166/2018, Police Station-Biaora
Dehat, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under
Sections
307 and
302/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39638/2018
(Manish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena on behalf of Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.231/2018, Police Station-Javad,
District-Neemuch, concerning offence under
Sections 363, 366 and
374 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37692/2018
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week’s time to cure
the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43777/2018
(Rohit Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31/10/2018
Shri Kaushal Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.518/2018, Police Station-Rajendra
Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 49(A) of the
M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to revive his prayer after filing of the charge-
sheet.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40730/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38456/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38482/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
adjourment.
By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36613/2018x
(Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 12(B)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5741/2017x
(Dinesh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3333/2018-this is
repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.1-Dinesh. First application for suspension of custodial sentence
of appellant No.1-Dinesh is dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order
dated 27/02/2018.
Appellant No.1-Dinesh has been convicted for the offence punishabe
under
Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
1 year and 7 years, respectively with fine of Rs.500/- each with usual default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-Dinesh
is the husband of deceased-Sunita and he was on bail during the trial and he
did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Sunita has committed suicide on
30/09/2015 by consuming some poisonous substance. Father of the appellant
No.1 informed the police and parents of the deceased regarding her death. The
funeral ceremony was performed in the presence of the family members of the
deceased, but at that time they did not make any complaint against the
appellant No.1 regarding ill treatment of Sunita. It is further submitted that
Relji (PW 1), Rahlibai (PW 2), Jaggan (PW 3) and Ravindra (PW 5) have
made only general and omnibus allegations against the appellant No.1
regarding harassment of Sunita. As per the autopsy report no injury was found
on the body of the deceased. It is alleged that the appellant No.1 has
performed the second marriage, due to which Sunita has committed suicide.
There is nothing on record to demonstrates that at any point of time, deceased
was instigated or provoked by the appellant No.1 to commit suicide. The
appellant No.1 is in jail for last more than 1 year and there is no likelihood of
early hearing of the present appeal in near future. The appellant No.1 cannot
be kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, the appeal filed by him may turn
infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Under these
circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant No.1.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.3333/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the
appellant No.1-Dinesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant
No.1 shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant No.1-Dinesh, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark
their presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/03/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4569/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant is still
absconding.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to surrender the
appellant before the trial Court, thereafter, IA No. 4791/2018 will be
considered.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.8092/2018x
(Pushkar Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7618/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellants.
Appellants have been found guilty for offence under
Section 420
and
120(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each respectively with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
trial Court till 12/11/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No.7618/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
against the appellants shall remain 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 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List the appeal in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.8194/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Let record of the court below be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.No.3416/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akshat Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5484/2018, an application
for staying the operation of order dated 26/06/2018 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dhar in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016 .
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and findings given by
the trial Court in para Nos. 10, 11, 15, 25 and 26 of the impunged order, IA No.
5484/2018 is hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the operation of the
impugned order dated 26/06/2018 passed in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016
shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 26/11/2018 on the question of admission.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.43798/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Satanand Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extension of time to deposit the amout of Rs.4.00
Lacs as directed by this Court, vide order dated 21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.
No. 31043/2018.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, last opportunity
of 7 working days is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to deposit
Rs.4:00 Lacs before the trial Court.
This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018 and
21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and 31043/2018 respectively. A
copy of this order be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and
31043/2018.
With the aforesaid directions this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
(Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.306/2018, Police Station-Ranapur,
District-Jhabua, concerning offence under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2)
(n) and 506 of the
IPC alongwith Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41057/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a
week’s time to verify the documents filed by the applicant in support of
his bail application.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41571/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
granted time to file written objection.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41593/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri A.K. Sarawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
(Vishal @ Rajiv Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.15/2018, Police Station-
Rampura, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under
Sections 363
and
376 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
(Sheikh Alim Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.239/2018, Police Station-Azad
Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Section 302/34 of the
IPC alongwith
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40075/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week’s time to cure
the defects pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5047/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5151/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5123/2018x
Indore dated :30/10/2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision is admitted for final hearing.
This Criminal Revision is preferred under
Sections 397 and 401
of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 10/10/2018 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.89/2015 confirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/01/2015 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.
2483/2010, whereby the applicants have been convicted for offence
punishable under
Sections 498(A) of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each with default
stipulation.
Heard on I.A. No.7532/2018, an application under
Section 397
(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of the applicants.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
courts’s below have committed error in convicting the applicants and
therefore, the correctness of the findings have been challenged. It is also
submitted that the applicants were on bail during the trial and the liberty
so granted was not misused by them. There are fair chances of success
of this revision and the applicants cannot be kept in custody
unnecessarily, otherewise this revision filed by them may turn
infructuous. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
This Court, after carefully going through the record and after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that
I.A.No.7532/2018 deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of the remaining sentence awarded to the applicants shall
remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition and they
shall be released on bail subject to depositing compensation amount and
on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only)each with one separate solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court
on 08/02/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this
regard by the Registry.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.

(S. K. AWASTHI)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 711/2016
Indore dated : 30/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for
issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @
Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested
by the Police on 22/10/2018 and produced before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur.
Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is
produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head
Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He
be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering
remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant.
List the revision for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1323/2008
(Gaja Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:29/10/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Akhilesh Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7530/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of conviction of appellant
No.2-Santosh S/o Makrani.
Appellant No.2-Santosh has been convicted under
Section 326 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 17/11/2008
passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No. 126/2006.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
filed the present Criminal Appeal on 21/11/2008 alongwith application for
suspension of custodial sentnece, which was admitted for final hearing and
his application for suspension of custodial sentence was allowed by this
Court, vide order dated 25/11/2008 and he was directed to be released on
bail upon furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with a surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court 05/01/2009 and thereafter as
may be directed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that after released
on bail since approximately last 10 years, the appellant has regularly
marked his presence before the Registry of this Court. It is also submits
that the appellant No.2-Santosh belongs to the Scheduled Tribes
community and he is highly qualified person. He is eligible for various
employments and is having bright future. Father of the appellant-Markani
S/o Chogalal, who was working as Teacher in Govt. school and during the
pendency of this appeal, he died on 06/09/2011. After that he became
eligible to seek compassionate appointment and the benefit of
compassionate appointment can be obtained by him within 7 years from
the death of his father, however, due to conviction in the criminal case, he
could not avail the opportunity of compassionate appointment and very
soon he will become over age. His carrier is suffering due to continuously
losing opportunities and thus forced to darken his bright future in waiting
for disposal of present appeal. The appellant also wants to contest the
election, which is going to be held in November, 2018.
It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
that as per the findings given by the trial Court, there was no pre-
meditation and it is a case of free fight. It is further submitted that both the
parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise. They
have moved an application under
Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for
compounding the offence, which has been kept pending by this Court
contending that this application shall be considered at the time of final
hearing of this appeal. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension
of conviction of the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is settled position of law that the appellate Court has the power
to suspended the conviction under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.,
however, in the case of Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 2007 SC 1003 and Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhoma S. Bagli,
(2007) 1 SCC 673, the Hon’ble apex Court has held that stay of the
order of conviction by an appellate court is an exception. It is accepted
from the person seeking stay that he should specifically draw the
attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if
the conviction is not stayed. However, grant of stay can be resorted to
in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.
In the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble apex Court
after examining the contention made on behalf of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant, it reveals that the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under
Section 326 of the IPC and as per the
findings given by the trial Court, there is specific allegation against
the appellant that he has caused grievous injury to injured Mukut by
Dhariya, which is also found prove by the trial Court. It is submitted
that the present appeal is pending since 2008 and during the pendency
of this appeal father of the appellant has died in the year 2011,
however, the appellant has not filed any document to demonstrate that he
is the only eligible person in his family, who can apply for the
compassionate appointment and the same has been rjected on the ground
that he is the convicted person in criminal case. The appellant has not filed
any application for early hearing till September, 2018 and first time on
05/09/2018, he has filed an application for early hearing before this Court,
which was disposed of with following directions to the Registry:-
1. To process the main admitted matter, if ready in all
respects, as per its turn, under caption “High Court Expedited
Cases” or any other suitable caption of priority cases,
whichever is earlier.
2. Parties is at liberty to apprise the Registrar (Judicial)
about any other suitable priority category in which the main
admitted matter can proceed in addition to “High Court
Expedited Cases” or the caption already assigned by the
Registry. The Registrar (Judicial) after due scrutiny shall issue
instructions to the concerned Dealing Assistant to update the
main matter in such other appropriate category, so that the same
can proceed for final hearing in the category, wherever it is
earlier, as per the CMIS software.
3. Further liberty is granted to the parties mention the main
matter, in cases of exceptional urgency, for appropriate
directions before DB-I, by way of mentioning slip without
filing any formal application for urgent hearing.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
of the view that after lapse of 10 years of filing of this appeal, the prayer
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant for suspension of
conviction is not deemed to be acceptable. Accordingly, IA No. 7530/2018
is hereby dismissed.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43003/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41248/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
granted time to file written objection.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41270/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39997/2018x
(Vikram Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.125/1997, Police Station-Nanpur,
District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under Section 34(1) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40740/2018x
(Vinit Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sjuraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 471, 467, 468, 419,
420 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41804/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri R.S. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks’
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42948/2018x
(Ashish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.1262/2018, Police Station-Excise
Department, Barwaha, District-Barwaha, concerning offence under
Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42960/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce case-diary of the
present case along with case-diary of Crime No.245/2018 registered at
Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42974/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks’
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42990/2018x
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri K.C. Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks’
time to produce case-diary.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43011/2018x
(Sheetal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :29/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.430/2018, Police Station-
M.I.G., District-Indore, concerning offences under
Sections 380, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of complainant before the trial Court .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Cetified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42442/2018x
(Balchand Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Yogesh
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.138/2018, Police Station-
Chhapiheda District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under
Sections 342,
376 and 506/34 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7448/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellants, the case is
adjourned.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42432/2018x
(Chainsingh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.323/2018, Police-Station-Nahargarh,
District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42437/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42438/2018x
(Shyam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.285/2018, Police-Station-Anjad,
District-Barwani, concerning offence under
Sections 302 and 294 of
the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the eye witness before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42443/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42446/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42451/2018x
(Mayank Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.438/2018, Police-Station-Shujalpur,
District-Shajapur, concerning offence under
Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42455/2018x
(Phulsingh @ Phulchand Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.169/2018, Police-Station-Sitamhow,
District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under
Sections 363, 366(A),
376(D), 376(2)(A), 506, 109 and 370 of the IPC alongwith Sections
5(G)/
6 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 42461/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1323/2008x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel alongwith Shri Iqbal
Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
At the request of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the case
is adjourned.
List on 29/10/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7792/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the copy of the proceedings of the trial Court.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41138/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41174/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41304/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41710/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41862/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to keep available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the next week.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41908/2018x
(Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.699/2018, Police-Station-Excise
Department, Mandleshwar, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under
Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23262/2017x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grated three
weeks’ time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.29242/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for time to argue
the matter.
This bail application is pending since July, 2018, therefore, by way
of last indulgence time is granted.
List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the copy of statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the
trial Court.
List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.43565/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the certified
copy of the complete proceedings of the trial Court.
List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41874/2018x
Indore dated :26/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cure
the defects.
Case-diary is available.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4350/2017x
(Rajesh @ Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5430/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Rajesh @ Kaliya, who has been found guilty for offence
under
Section 307 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 7
years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant did
not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination, therefore,
alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. During the
pendency of this appeal, both the parties have moved an application under
Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for compromise. The appellant is in custody
since 28/01/2017 and he has already completed approximately 1 years and
9 months of his jail sentence. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous. Under
these circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
for grant of bail to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that complainant-Manoj Chandel deposed
against the appellant in his examination-in-chief and on the request of the
counsel for the defence his cross-examination was reserved and after that
he turned hostile, which indicates the complainant was win over by the
appellant. As per the MLC report of complainant-Manoj, 6 incised wounds
were found on his body. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection
of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 5430/2018 is hereby rejected.
However, the appellant-Rajesh @ Kaliya is granted liberty to renew his
prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail sentence.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6304/2018x
(Bablu Sheikh Pathan Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6269/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Bablu, who has been found guilty for offence under
Section
392 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years
and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant that
there was no named FIR against the appellant. It is alleged that
complainant-Durga Bai (PW 1) has identified the appellant in Test
Identification Parade and she also identified the gold and silver ornaments,
which were recovered from the appellant, however, Durga Bai (PW 1)
accepted in her cross-examination that before test identification parade, she
was called to the Police-Station, where she had already seen the
photograph of the appellant and thereafter, T.I.P. was arranged. Hence,
when the complainant was having an opportunity to view the photograph
of appellant, then the evidence of T.I.P. goes away. Similarly, the
independent witnesses have not supported the memorandum and the
seizure memo, from which gold and silver ornaments were alleged to have
been recovered from the appellant. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, the
appellant cannot be convicted for the aforesaid offence. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in
custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn
infructuous. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that the robbed property has been recovered
from the possession of the applicant, which is duly proved by the
prosecution from the statement of A.S.I. -N.B.S. Kushwaha (PW 7) and
an auto rickshaw was also seized from the appellant, in which the
complainant was taken away by the appellant. The robbed articles were
also duly identified by the complainant during identification parade
conducted by Tehsildar-Smt. Pallavi Puranik (PW 8), therefore, there is
sufficient evidence is available on record, on the basis of which the
appellant was convicted for the alleged offence by the trial Court. Under
these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 6269/2018 is hereby rejected.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3413/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4012/2018, an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence on behalf of appellant-Dungar Singh.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw IA No. 4012/2018.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, IA No.4012/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40332/2018
(Narendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant-
Balvinder Singh.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the objector-Sarvesh
Jhavar.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.256/2017, Police Station-
Nanakheda, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under
Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC. First application of the applicant came
to be dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide, order dated
13/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9373/2018.
As per prosecution case, applicant-Narendra Patel and his
brother Laxmikant Patel proposed before complainant-Balvinder
Singh to purchase land bearing Survey No. 30, admeasuring 0.470
hectares situated at village Goyalkhurd. In this regard an
agreement/MOU was executed by Narendra Patel in favour of
complainant-Balvinder Singh and from time to time he received
Rs.35.00 Lacs from complainant-Balvinder Singh by way of part
consideration including Rs.4.0 Lacs through a cheque. However, later
on it was revealed that the land, which was proposed to be sold by the
applicant to complainant is of a Govt. land and the applicant is not
having any right or title over the aforesaid land and by this act the
applicant and his brother-Laxmikant have cheated the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the land in
question was belongs to Mangilal and 4 others and they sold this land
to one Jitendra Singh residents of Ujjain on 09/04/2012 by a registered
sale-deed. Thereafter, Jitendra Singh had entered into an agreement
with the present applicant-Narendra Patel on 11/04/2014. On the
execution of the said agreement, the applicant gave Rs. 6.0 Lacs to
Jitendra Singh as token amount and after that the present applicant had
entered into agreement with the complainant on 21/12/2014. It is
further submitted that Khasra Panch-Sala of the land in question
demonstrates that the aforesaid land was in the name of Mangilal and
4 others till the year 2013-2014 and thereafter, the land was in the
name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain for the year 2014-2015. Hence,
when the applicant had entered into an agreement with the
complainant on 21/12/2014 at that time the aforesaid land was not
registered in the name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain, therefore, the
applicant has not committed any offence with the complainant. It is
also contended that the applicant is in custody since 14/11/2017.
Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of
trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned
counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant/objector
and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application by
contending that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has
committed same nature of offence at Indore. The applicant was
declared absconder in the year 2016 and thereafter, he was arrested by
the Police. It is further submitted that the applicant fradulently
received Rs. 35.0 Lacs from the complainant-Balvinder Singh and
entered into an agreement regarding the sale of land, which was not
belongs to him. Under these circumstances, they prayed for rejection
of bail application.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and looking to the facts and cirucmtances of the case,
this Court is of the view that no case for grant of bail to the applicant
is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under
Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4950/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7313/2018, an
application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for correction in the order
dated 20/08/2018 passed in IA No. 5864/2018, by which the appellant
No.4-NIrmala Bai was directed to mark her presence before A.C.J.M.,
Mhow.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the custodial
sentence of appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was suspended by this Court,
vide order dated 30/07/2018 and she was ordered to be released on bail
on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
her appearance before the C.J.M., Indore on 03/10/2018. Later on,
appellants moved an application i.e. IA No. 5864/2018 for correction in
the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated
20/08/2018 and appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was directed to mark her
presence before the A.C.J.M, Mhow instead of C.J.M., Indore. On
03/10/2018, when appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai went to the aforesaid
Court for marking her presence, then she was informed that there is no
Court of A.C.J.M, Mhow, therefore, her presence was not marked.
Looking to the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the appellants
prayed that appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai may be directed to mark her
presence before the Registry of this Court instead the Court of A.C.J.M,
Mhow.
Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the prayer.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, IA No. 7313/2018 is hereby
allowed.
Appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai is directed to mark her presence
before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2018 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.722/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Gulab Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.5007/2018
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4272/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4271/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
weeks time to argue the matter.
List after a week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38618/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Ajay Baswan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, accepts the notice on behalf of the
applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39195/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.42222/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8653/2017x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17464/2017x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.
List in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28556/2017xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Ms. Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for the applicants.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.966/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two
weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.1220/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2184/2018x
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time
to argue the matter.
List after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37598/2018xx
Indore dated :24/10/2018
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Shakti Singh Dhakray, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/State.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.
List on 29/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3852/2018x
(Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The applicant has filed IA No.6022/2018, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining custodial
sentence of the applicant-Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir.
The applicant has preferred this revision petition against the
judgment dated 02/08/2018 passed by XIVth Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 435/2017, whereby the appeal preferred
by the applicant has been dismissed by affirming the conviction and
sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal
Case No. 13445/2008 for the offence under
Sections 10(a) and 13(1) of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .
In the revision petition application under
Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Looking to the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the
applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file an application
for amendment in the cause-title of this application.
List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5320/2018x
(Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5512/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu, who has been found guilty for
offence under
Sections 363,366 and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section
¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years, 05 years, 10 years
and 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- , Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
As per ossification test report the age of the prosecutrix is found to be
above 18 years. Prosecutrix stated in her statement that at the instance of
her maternal aunt, she has gone with the applicant and remained with
him for a considerable period in Bhopal and Indore. During this period
she neither made any complaint against the appellant regarding
abduction or commission of rape nor tried to run away from his
company. The prosecutrix also executed an affidavit regarding contract
of marriage with the applicant, in which she mentioned her date of birth
as 21/10/1995, which clearly shows that she was major and consenting
party. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of
this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
the application and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
the jail sentence of the appellant-Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5512/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2590/2018x
(Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4638/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Santosh, who has been found guilty for offence under
Sections 366, 366(A) and 376(2)(N) of the IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years, 05 years and 10 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- , Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
The prosecutrix is a major lady and she had left her house with her own
will. During the pendency of the trial both the parties have entered into
marriage and they are living together. They have also moved an
application for compromise before the trial Court, however, aforesaid
offences registered against the appellant are non-compoundable,
therefore, the same was not considered. The prosecutrix executed an
affidavit in favour of the appellant, in which she categorically stated that
under the pressure of her parents she has made the statement against the
appellant and now she wanted to live and reside with the appellant,
therefore, she has no objection in allowing the application for
suspension of his jail sentence and aforesaid facts have been supported
by the learned counsel for the complainant/objector. It is further
submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper
manner. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success
of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
the application and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
the jail sentence of the appellant-Santosh.

Accordingly, I.A. No.4638/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the
execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against
the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this
appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40214/2018x
(Kamlesh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 23/10/2018
Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicants are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.219/2018
registered at Police-Station-Bilpank, District-Ratlam, for the offence
punishable under
Sections 353, 506 and 451/34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 01/05/2018 at about 5:00 p.m.,
the complainant, who is a government employee and was working in
his MPEB office at that time the applicants forcefully entered into the
premises and started hurling obscenities directed towards the
complainant. They also tried to drag the complainant outside the office
and obstructed him from discharging his duty.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants are active members of the civil society. Complaint was
made by the residents of village-Bilpank against the present
complainant in the month of January 2018, therefore, the complaint
was angry with the applicants and other residents of village-Bilpank,
hence, he lodged the false complaint against the present applicants. No
incident as alleged has taken place. Even if all the allegations made in
the complaint are believed, the offences registered against the
applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. The
applicants undertakes that they will completely cooperate with the
investigation and will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed
by this Court. Under these circumstances, learned Senior counsel for
the applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application by contending that the applicants entered into the office of
the complainant and they assaulted him and tried to obstruct him from
discharging his duties. Therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicants are not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage this
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, this application is hereby rejcted. However, the
applicants are at liberty to surrender before the trial Court and moved
an appropriate application for regular bail.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41686/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri R.K. Gondale, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of
marriage of applicant’s sister and submit its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List on 26/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41749/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41767/2018x
(Bhupendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri D.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.573/2018, Police Station-
Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under
Section 25
of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after one and half
months.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the medical
papers of the applicant’s wife and submit its report by next date of
hearing positively.
List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39056/2018x
(Amit Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.425/2018, Police Station-
Hatpipaliya, District-Dewas, concerning offences under
Sections
354(A)(D),
341 and 506/34 of the IPC .
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the victim before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
Indore dated :23/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/N.C.B.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail
application of co-accused-Kanhaiyalal has been decided by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 7449/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for the
complainant/Objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7335/2018, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 59 days in filing this appeal.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
delay of 59 days in preferring this appeal.
Accordingly, IA No.7335/20185/2018 is allowed and delay of 59
days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.
Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40713/2018x
( Chand Mohd. Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 114/2018, Police Station-
Niwali, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 4,6 and 9
of Madhya Pradesh Gou Vansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and
Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and
Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
alongwith
Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicants seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this
application.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.33104/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Rohan Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
From the perusal of the case-diary, it appears that the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her MLC
report are not available with the case-diary.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the aforesaid
documents alongwith the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
seven days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39438/2018x
( Faeem Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 428/2011, Police
Station-Nagda Mandi, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
Sections 302, 506, 294 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections
25 and
27 of the Arms Act.
As per the medical papers of the applicant filed alongwith bail
application, no case for temporary bail, as prayed is made out.
Accrodingly, M.Cr.C. No. 39438/2018 is hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37657/2018x
( Prabhulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (third) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 03/2018, Police Station-
Bhojpur, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under
Sections 147,
148, 149, 294, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40195/2018x
( Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 823/2018, Police Station-Lasudiya,
District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 376(2)(N), 366
and
506 of the IPC.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40299/2018x
( Sunil Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 137/2011, Police Station-Badwah,
District-Khargone, concerning offence under
Sections 399 and 402 of
the IPC alongwith
Section 25 of the Arms Act.
After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40828/2018x
(Rahul Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.408/2018, Police Station-Tukoganj,
District-Indore, concerning offences under
Sections 376(2)(n), 323
and
506 of the IPC .
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41242/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41244/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41248/2018x
Indore dated :22/10/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Case-Diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.
Be listed in the next week.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.620/2017x
(Sattu Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7123/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No.4-Babulal.
Appellant has been found guilty for offence under
Sections 147 ,
450 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to 1 years R.I., 5 years R.I.
and life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.
200/- respectively for each offence with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
No.4-Babulal was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the eye witnessess of
the incident, namely, Kamlabai (PW 1), Ratan Kevat (PW 2) and
Rukmabai (PW 3) had not supported the prosecution case and have
turned hostile. The appellant No.4-Babulal has been convicted on the
basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is
treated as dying declaration, however, in the aforesaid report the
allegation against the appellant is that he hurled filthy language upon
deceased and he has caused injuries to the deceased by kicks and fists,
due to which he sustained injuries on his stomach and died during the
treatment. The appellant-Babulal was not having any weapon at the time
of occurrence and incident has taken place all of a sudden, therefore, he
cannot be held guilty for causing death of deceased-Nanda. Application
for suspension of custodial sentence of other appellants have already
been allowed by this Court and the case of the appellant-Babulal is
similar to them. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant No.4-
Babulal.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
submitting that the present applicant is prime accused and in the dehati
nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is treated as
dying declaration, there are specific allegation against the appellant
No.4-Babulal that he hurled filthy languages upon the deceased and
caused him injuries by kicks and fists on his vital part i.e. stomach and
because of this, the deceased was died, therefore, the appellant cannot
claim parity with other co-acccused person, who were granted bail by
this Court. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.
On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, at this
stage, no case for grant of suspension of remaining custodial jail
sentence of appellant-Babulal is made out. Accordingly, IA No.
7123/2018 is dismissed. However, the appellant-Babulal is granted
liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail
sentence.
List in due course.

(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3857/2018x
(Dara Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6107/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Dara Singh.
Appellant has been found guilty for offence under
Sections
120(B) and
302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively for each offence with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not
named in the FIR nor he participated in the alleged incident. He has also
drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 87
of the impugned order and submitted that there is no cogent material
available on record regarding conviction of the appellant with the aid of
Section 120(B) of the IPC . It is further submitted that the case of the
applicant is similar to co-accused Shivam @ Shiv Om, whose
application for suspension of custodial sentence has already been
allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/08/2018 passed in Cr.A. No.
3774/2018, therefore, on the ground of parity, he prays for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Dara Singh.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection.
On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it reveals that except the fact that the appellant
brought his motorcycle in the workshop of Hemant Chawda (PW 1) for
repairing, which is used in the offence and there is no other evidence
available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime , thus
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA No.6107/2018 is
allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on
furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Darasingh in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5827/2018x
(Bharat Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6627/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
Mahesh.
Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have been found guilty for offence under
Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three
years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/-
respectively with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the
statement of sole eyewitness Indrapal (PW 10), the allegation against
the present appellants that they were member of unlawful assembly but
no overt act has been attributed to them. The main allegation of causing
head injury is against co-accused-Darbar, who was armed with axe and
inflicted, head injury to the deceased. The suspension of custodial
sentence of appellant No.1-Bharat has already been suspended by this
Court, vide order dated 31/08/2018 and the role of the appellant Nos. 2
to 4 is similar to him. Under these circumstances he prays for
suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
and prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, IA No. 6627/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
Mahesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each
with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution
of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the
appellants shall remain 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 08/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S. C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4603/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6910/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants-
Omprakash and Sagarmal.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under
Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo 3 years R.I. and 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-
each respectively with usual default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
not named in the FIR. Although in the test identification parade they
were identified by the prosecution witness- Gopal Das (PW 4),
however, the test identification proceedings has not been conducted
according to the prescribed procedure, therefore, this identification has
no value. It is also submitted that there are only general and omnibus
allegations are levelled against the applicants. It further submitted that
there are fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant
cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has
been awarded by the Courts’ below, otherwise the present revision
petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for suspension
of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application by contending that the trial Court and the appellate Court
after due appreciation of the material available on record found the
charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. It is
also submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding re-
appreciation of evidence is very limited. Injured-Girdharilal sustained
grievous injuries on his eye and he has lost his eyesight. Injured and
other witnesses did not know the applicants at the time of incident
and there statements have been recorded after lapse of 13 years of the
incident, therefore, it cannot be accepted that they are in position to
narrate the incident as it was happened. The applicants are convicted
for the 3 years, however, they are in custody for last one month,
therefore, it cannot be said that if the jail sentence of the applicants is
not suspended, then their revision may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly,
IA No. 6910/2018 is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7447/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted three
weeks time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40841/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40819/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
None for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7420/2018x
(Ajay Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7157/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellants.
Appellants have been found guilty for offence under
Section
435/
34 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
trial Court till 15/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No.7157/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
against the appellants shall remain 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 11/01/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37818/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to argue the matter.
List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3209/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4954/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No./State.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, accepts the notice on behalf of the
applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List thereafter.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40214/2018
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed
some documents in support of the bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the documents by
next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36981/2018x
( Raychandra @ RamchandraVs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 231/2018, Police Station-Neemuch
City, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under
Sections 307, 294,
506 and 427/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39426/2018x
(Ramesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is first application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 490/2017, Police Station-Bilpank,
District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Sections 8/15 and 29 of the
NDPS Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39582/2018x
( Dinesh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41446/2018x
( Tejpal Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri B.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is repeat (second) application under
Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
of the M.P. Excise Act.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
Indore dated : 12/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.41238/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
From the perusal of the case-diary it appears that although the
statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded under
Section
164 of the Cr.P.C., however, same is not placed alongwith the case-
diary.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the statement of
the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by next
date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks’
granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x
Indore dated :12/10/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks’
granted time to argue the matter.
List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1320/2018x
(Kamal Singh Ors.Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 09/10/2018
Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER

This revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/07/2017 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District-Agar in Cri.Appeal No.123/2015,
confirming the judgment dated 28/02/2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nalkheda, District-Agar in Criminal Case No.393/2010, by which the
applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections
323/
34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months
R.I., 1 years R.I., 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for each offence
respectively. The applicant No.1 Kamal is also convicted for the offence
punishalbe under
Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act and he has been
sentenced to undergo 1 years RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25/11/2010 at about 7:45 p.m.,
the complainant Tejkaran was going alongwith his bhabhi-Antabai to his
house, when he reached near the house of Unkar, the applicants came there
and applicant No.1 started abusing him and gave a sword blow on the head of
the complainant, thereafter, applicant No.3-Omprakash entered into the house
armed with sword and stick and assaulted him. When his wife came there to
rescue him then Kamal gave a sword blow on her head. After hearing hue and
cry when Ramesh and Pappu came there to rescue them then applicant No.2-
Gokul gave a pharsi blow on the neck of Pappu. Gokul and co-accused
Dinesh also assaulted the Ramesh and his Bhabhi with pharsi and stick
respectively, due to which they sustained injuries. After the incident,
complainant-Tejkaran lodged an FIR at Police Station-Nalkheda and on that
basis case was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable
under
Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC alongwith Section
25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act at Crime No. 198/2010. On completion of
investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Nalkheda, District-
Agar.

3. After framing the charges and recording the evidence, the offences
under
Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 IPC alongwith Section 25(1B)(b)
were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated
herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred
which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that
the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts
below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence
resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision.
Learned counsel for the applicants has alternatively submitted that the
applicants are in custody since 07/03/2018 and they have no criminal past
nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident
involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for
reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the
period of imprisonment already undergone.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the
evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the
aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court
is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded
by the Courts below.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the
applicants is established on the basis of the statements of Sheikh Naushad
(PW 1), complainant-Tejkaran (PW 2), Sushil (PW 3), Ramesh (PW 4), Pappu
(PW 5), Smt. Annu (PW6), Guddi Bai (PW 7), Kailash (PW 8), Narendra
Singh (PW 9), Manguji (PW 10), Babulal ( PW 11), Dr. R.K. Tiwari (PW 12)
and Babulal Malviya (PW 13). Hence, considering the material available on
record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the
applicants for the offence punishable under
Sections 323/34, 324/34 and
325/34 of IPC and the applicant No.1-Kamal for the offence under Section
25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, also.

7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, as minimum sentence of
one year is presribed for the offence under
Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act ,
therefore, the conviction and jail sentence awarded by the courts’ below with
respect to applicant No.1-Kamal is hereby affirmed, however, looking to the
nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the
applicants have already remained approximately 7 months in jail, I am of the
considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the applicant Nos.2 and 3
namely, Gokul and Omprakash for the offence punishable under
Sections
323/
34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC is reduced to the sentence already
undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.600/-
for each offence, within a period of thirty days. Out of the total amount of
fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Tejkaran as
compensation under
Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In
default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant Nos. 2 3,
namely, Gokul and Omprakash shall suffer 20-20 days RI respectively under
Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC.

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and
sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

Record of the courts’ below alongwith a copy of this order be sent back
to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4622/2018x
Indore dated :09/10/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
Shri S.S. Ali, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6932/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Anis
Ali.

The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 354(D) and 341 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to
undergo 6 months R.I. and 1 month R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-
and Rs.100/- respectively with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was
on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and he did not
misuse the liberty so granted to him. It also submitted that there are
fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant cannot be
kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has been awarded
by the Courts’ below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by
him may turn infructuous. It is further submitted that the marriage of
the applicant’s son is going to be solemnized on 21/10/2018 and his
presence on the aforesaid ceremony is necessary. Under these
circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for the complainant/objector have opposed the application . It is also
pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and
the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material available on
record found the charges proved against the applicant for the aforesaid
offence. They further submitted that the scope of the revisional court
regarding re-appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these
circumstances they prays for rejection of the application.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicant by the courts below. However,
looking to the fact that marriage of the applicant’s son is going to be
held on 21/10/2018 and his presence on the aforesaid ceremony is
necessary. Accordingly, IA No. 6932/2018 is allowed for limited
period. The applicant-Anis Ali be released on temporary bail for a
period of 15 days from the date of his release on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lacs Only)
with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
trial Court subject to an undertaking that he will surrender himself
after completion of 15 days period from the date of his release and
remanded back to the custody. The trial Court is also directed to
intimate this Court whether the applicant shall surrender or not?

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40699/2018x
( Lav Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case-diary is perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.298/2018, Police Station-
P.N.B., District-Dewas, concerning offences under
Sections 376(2)

(n),342 and 506 of the IPC. First application has been dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 20/08/2018 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 32362/2018.

As per prosecution story, on 09/05/2018 at about 11:30 a.m.,
complainant went to village Avaliya, Pipaliya Phate for her treatment,
where she met with applicant and he took her to Dewas on his
motorcycle on the pretext of treatment he committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of
the prosecutrix and other witnesses have been recorded before the trial
Court and there are material inconsistencies in their statements, which
clearly shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the
prosecutrix in the present case. Applicant is in custody since
21/05/2018. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under
these circumstnces, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application by contending that the prosecutrix is deposed against the
applicant and there are sufficient material available on record against
the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and the fact that 6 witnesses have already been examined
before the trial Court and the trial is now at advance stage, at this stage
appreciation of the evidence is not required. Looking to the statement
of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court, this Court is of the
view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, this
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40717/2018
( Jitendra Pal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case-diary is perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.364/2018, Police Station-Kotwali,
District-Shajapur, concerning offences under Sections420, 467, 468
and 471/34 of the
IPC.

As per prosecution story, on 22/08/2018 complainant-Anoop
Singh lodged the FIR against the applicant alleging that he constituted
a fake company in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated
Company without taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of
sanction of loan amount, he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons
and issued them forged receipt.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The
FIR has been lodged after 4 months of the alleged incident. Matter
relates to civil dispute and FIR has been lodged with intent to convert
it into criminal case. The applicant is in custody since 23/08/2018.
Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of
trial will take considerable long time. It is also submitted that mother
of the applicant is suffering from cancer and there is no one in his
family to look after her. Under these circumstances, he prayed for
grant of bail to the applicant. In this regard he placed reliance on the
judgments of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali Vs. State
of Chattisgarh, Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Vikram Narayan Ghiya Vs. State
of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, State of U.P. Through C.B.I. V.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21,
Akhtari Bi (Smt.) V. State of
M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355 order passed by High Court of M.P., in
the case of Khuman Singh Rajput Vs. Superintendent of Police,
Datia Another, 2017 (II) MANISA 83(M.P.) Aditya Singh
Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2015 (1) M.P.H.T. 48.

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application contending that the applicant constituted a fake company
in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated Company without
taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of sanction of loan amount
he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons and issued them forged
receipt and he collected Rs. 70 to 75 Lacs from the beneficiaries and
fled away, therefore, looking to the conduct of the applicant, no
sufficient ground for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, this court is of the view that there are sufficient material
available on record to connect the applicant with alleged crime, the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not
applicable in the present case because they are passed on merits after
recording the evidence. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
of bail is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under
Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x
( Anil Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.453/2016, Police Station-
Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under
Sections 302,
307, 147,148, 149, 506, 452 and 427 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is two weeks’
granted time to file relevant documents.

List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37441/2018x
( Shubham Joshi Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.517/2018, Police Station-Mahakal,
District-Ujjain, concerning offences under
Sections 324, 327, 294 and
506 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37906/2018x
( Devi Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri Deepesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.226/2018, Police Station-
Pipalrawan, District-Dewas, concerning offences under
Sections 354,
354(A)(1) and 506 of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38024/2018x
( Shankar Mehar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 10/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
respondent/State.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.89/2018, Police Station-Badawda,
District-Ratlam, concerning offences under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2)

(n) 376(2)(D) of the IPC alongwith Section 5/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.40628/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
weeks time to argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39465/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time
to file certain documents.

List on 12/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39174/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 34427/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of
affidavit filed by Anil son of the applicant and submit its report by
the next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6736/2018x
(Rupsingh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:10/10/2018
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6661/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Rupsingh, who has been found guilty for offence under
Section 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only allegation
against the appellant is that he assaulted injured-Sardar Singh by lathi,
due to which he sustained injuries on his head, which are found to be
simple in nature. It is alleged that co-accused Dule Singh fired on
injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1) by country made pistol, due to which he
sustained injuries on his chest, however, as per the statement of Doctor
S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot
injuries were found on the chest of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No
medical opinion is available on record to show that the injuries
sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was fatal or sufficient to cause his
death in natural course of life. Under these circumstances no offence
under
Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant,
however, the learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the
evidence available on record in proper prospects and convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC.
Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of this
appeal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal
shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Rupsingh.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6661/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Rupsingh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6280/2018x
(Dule Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:10/10/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6257/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Dule Singh, who has been found guilty for offence under
Section 307 of the IPC alongwith Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 500/- respectively with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although in the FIR
and in the statement of complainant-Bharat Singh (PW 1), it has come
that the appellant fired on him by country made pistol, due to which he
sustained injuries on his chest and this evidence is also corroborated by
prosecution witnesses Bapu Singh (PW 3) and Lakhandas (PW 9),
however, as per the statement of Doctor S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray
report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot injuries were found on the chest
of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No medical opinion is available on
record to show that the injuries sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was
fatal or sufficient to cause his death in natural course of life. Under these
circumstances, the charge for offence under
Section 307 of the IPC is
not found proved against the appellant, however, the learned trial Court
has committed error in appreciating the evidence available on record in
proper prospects and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
under
Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant is
in custody since 06/06/2015 and he has already completed more than 3
years and 4 months of custodial sentence. Lastly, it is submitted that the
there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Dule Singh.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6257/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Dule Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 6673/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri Ajay Bagadiya with Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant.

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6825/2018, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 14 days in filing this appeal.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal.

Accordingly, IA No.6825/2018 is allowed and delay of 14 days in
filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4494/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharm, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 39638/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks’ time to file the copy of statement of the prosecutrix recorded
before the trial Court.

List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40590/2018x
Indore dated :10/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 1778/2013
(Aditya Sharma Ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Ors.)
Indore dated :04/10/2018
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1

3.
Heard.

The applicants have preferred this petition for invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short “
Cr.P.C.”) calling in question order dated
28/01/2013, passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge,
District Shajapur in Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 affirming the
order dated 06/10/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 921/2006, whereby the charges for
offence under
Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC have been framed
against the applicants.

2. The facts of the case which are relevant for deciding this petition
are that on 19/07/2005, Bhupendra Gaur an employee of respondent
No.1-Nagar Palika Parishad, Shajapur came to the applicants’ house
for demarcation and assessment of property tax, during this some
dispute arose between them. Allegedly as per complainant-Bhupendra
Gaur, he was abused and deterred from performing public duties.
Complainant-Bhupendra Gaur made a written complaint against the
applicants at police-station Shajapur, however, the police did not take
any action on that report, then he filed a private complaint before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur. Thereafter,
statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.and after that vide order dated
12/04/2006, learned Magistrate has issued process against the
applicants upon finding prima-facie case against them for the offence
under
Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC.

3. Feeling aggrieved by order of taking cognizance, a revision
petition has been preferred by the applicants before the Sessions
Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 and
final order was passed on 28/01/2013, whereby the revision petition
has been dismissed on the ground that the contentions raised by the
applicants are in nature of defence, which is offered by the present
applicants and it cannot be considered at this stage and it will be
available to the applicants during the course of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a report was
also made by the applicants regarding the aforesaid incident against
Bhupendra Gaur, R.K. Gupta, Bannesingh Ghourasiya, Naushad
Ahmed and Duttaji Rao, all the employee of Nagar Palika Parishad,
Shajapur for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 323/149, 452,
292, 506(II) and 507 of the IPC at Police-Station-Shajapur. When
police declined to registered the FIR then private complaint was filed
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, which was got
registered vide order dated 12/04/2006. On 30/07/2009 both the
parties have filed an application under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for
compromise, which was partly allowed by the trial Court by
discharging the applicants for the offence punishable under
Section
323 of the Cr.P.C., however, the trial Court framed the charge for
offence under
Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC against the
applicants. It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to
consider that there is no resolution passed by the Nagar Palika to
authorize Bhupendra Gaur to make demarcation of the applicants
house, which gave rise to present bone of contention, therefore, the
prosecution of the applicants are abuse of process of law. The trial
court has also committed error of law by taking cognizance on the
private complaint filed by CMO- Sanjesh Kumar Gupta, who was not
authorize to make the aforesaid private complaint. Under these
circumstances, looking to the fact that compromise was taken place
between the parties, impugned order deserves to be quashed and the
applicants be discharged from the aforesaid offences.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits
that both the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, he is not
having any objection, if the prayer made by the applicants be
accepted.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

7. The contents of the statement made by the complainant before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur reflects that specific
allegations have been made against the applicants for commission of
offence punishable under
Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC and
there is sufficient material available on record for framing of charges
against the applicants. The contentions raised by the applicants are in
nature of defence, which is offered by the present applicants and it
cannot be considered at this stage and it will be available to the
applicants during the course of the trial.

8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and Ors,
2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of
the High Court that the averments made in the complaint are
imaginary is not based on any material. Even assuming that the
complainant had a score to settle against the accused, the same by
itself may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings,
particularly in view of the fact that at least a prima-facie case has been
establish in view of the evidence on record.

9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs.
K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered
the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing
of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of
evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge
has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that
accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong
suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be
framed.

10. This Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs.
Satish Rohra, 2005 (4) MPLJ 380, has held in the following
manner:-

“6. I have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties
and carefully perused the evidence and the material on
record. Before considering the evidence and the material
on record for the limited purpose of finding out whether a
prima facie case for issuance of process has been made
out or not, it may be mentioned at the very outset that the
various documents and the reports filed by the
petitioners/Company along with the petition can not be
looked into at the stage of taking cognizance or at the
stage of framing of the charge. The question whether
prima facie case is made out or not has to be decided
purely from the point of view of the complainant without
at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.
No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to
the accused any right to file any material or document at
the stage of taking cognizance or even at the stage of
framing of the charge in order to thwart it. That right is
granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary
stage the material produced by the complainant alone is
to be considered.”

11. In the context of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the
view that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing
the charge for the offence under
Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the
IPC.

12. It is not disputed that the parties have entered into
compromise and they have filed an application under
Section 320
of the Cr.P.C. permitting them to compound the offence, however,
the aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court, looking
to the facts that the offence under
Section 353 of the IPC is non-
compoundable offence.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the
offence under
Section 353 of the IPC is non-compoundable, however,
it can be compounded if this Court permits such compounding of
offence excersing extra ordinary jurisdiction granted to this Court
under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard he placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of
Dimpey Gujral V.
Union of Territory, Chandigarh, 2013 AIR SC 518, in which relying
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of
Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab Anr., (reported in 2012 AIR SCW
5333), it has been held that the High Court can quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute considering the nature of gravity of crime. Henious and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly
civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute.

14. While dealing with the same issue, the Hon’ble apex Court in
Narinder Singh Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466, has observed as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down
the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept
the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either
of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for
offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine
as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against the
individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the
FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section
307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to
the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in
the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept
the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by
the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial
role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately
after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on
and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising
its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and
to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307
IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at
the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between
the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under
Section 307 IPC and conviction
is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon’ble apex
Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral and Narinder Singh (supra), the
offence registered against the applicants are relating to use of criminal
force against the person, who is being a public servant working in
order to execution of his duty and as such public servant with intent to
deterred from discharging his duty as public servant, therefore, the
offence registered against the applicants is of serious nature and
generally treated as crime against the society not against the individual
alone, therefore, this Court is of the view that the case pending against
the applicants cannot be quashed by exercising power under
Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.

16. Accordingly, prayer for quashment of charges for offence under
Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC framed against the applicants is
hereby rejected and the trial Court is directed to proceed the trial in
accordance with law.

Let records of the courts’ below alongwith a copy of this order
be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34955/2018x
Indore dated :09/10/2018
Shri Manikant Sharma with Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for
the applicant.

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant/objector submitted that third
application filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Cr.PC. has been
disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
05/04/2018 by granting liberty to the applicant to mention after completion
of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, therefore, the matter should be
listed before the same Bench.

Vide order dated 29/08/2018, the Office was directed to verify the
matter and list the same before appropriate Bench. After examining the
case, the Office has again listed the matter before this Court on the ground
that 4th application of the applicant is dismissed by this Court for want of
prosecution.

The complainant/objector is at liberty to raise this objection before
the Office.

It is also submitted that the case is listed today for cross-examination
of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.

Looking to the aforesaid reasons, the case is adjourned.
List on 12/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.622/2017x
(Kuldeep Saxena Vs. Pradeep Saxena)
Indore dated : 09/10/2018
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.K. Gokhale,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri S.S. Nahar, learned counsel for the respondent.
After arguing for some time, learned Senior counsel for the
applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed
under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to file fresh complaint
against respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing
the prayer.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4472/2018x
Indore dated :09/10/2018
Shri Vijay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6763/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence on behalf of applicant-Madanlal.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw IA No. 6763/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No.6763/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x
Indore dated : 09/10/2018
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Abhishek Bhargava, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week’s time to
verify the factum of affidavit filed by complainant-Jyoti D/o Bhagwan
Tamre.

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 38957/2018x
(Jamnabai Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 09/10/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 338/2018
registered at Police-Station-Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur, for the
offence punishable under
Section 306/34 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court and moved an appropriate application for regular bail.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2947/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Revision seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final hearing.
Suspension has already been granted to the applicant, therefore, no
further order is required.

List the revision for final hearing in due course.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3181/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.2/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned. List after one month.

Meanwhile record of the courts’ below be requisitioned.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3543/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to call
for the case-diary.

List after a week.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4509/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.5772/2018x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8447/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6918/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Shri Amber Pare, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri Nitin Mandhaniya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants appearing on behalf of the parties
submits that the matter is going on to be settled within one month.

As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List after a week.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7626/2017x
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Shri Mitesh, Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue the matter.

List after a week.

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9865/2017x
(
State of M.P. vs. Dilip)
Indore dated :06/10/2018
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Heard.

ORDER

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The Code’) seeking grant leave to

appeal against judgment dated 15/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 24070/2010, whereby the

respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section

325 of the IPC.

From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the incident

took place on 19/09/2010 and the FIR has been lodged on 06/10/2010 i.e.

after delay of 15 days and no explanation for delayed FIR is on record.

Further considered the statement of Ganga Singh (PW 2) and the material

available on record therein, in my concerned opinion the findings recorded

by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this

application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed .

(J. K. Maheshwari)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7053/2018x
(Surresh Bairagi Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
appeal filed under Section 14(2)A of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4097/2018x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2.

In absence of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the
case is adjourned.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39786/2018x
(Mamta Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri A.L. Kharol, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.848/2017, Police Station-Lasudiya,
District-Indore, concerning offences under
Sections 363, 366, 368,
376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(D), 344 and 346 of the IPC alongwith Section
5/
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39888/2018x
(Nathulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.169/2018, Police Station-Singoli,
District-Neemuch, concerning offences under
Sections 366, 376(2)(n),
342 and 506 of the IPC of the IPC alongwith Sections 5/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34407/2018x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission to withdraw this bail application filed under
Section
439 of the Cr.P.C..

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34812/2018x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 69/2011x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against appellant-Bhushan
Singh has return unserved with the report that he was not found on his
given address.

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Bhushan Singh
to secure his presence before this Court.

Superintendent of Police, Ujjain is directed to furnish the quarterly
report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the
serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Bhushan Singh.

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the
appellant-Bhushan Singh is not received.

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-
Bhushan Singh.

List on 07/01/2019.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1309/2012x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant No.1- Kaluram @ Kalu is not present today.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep
present applicant No.1 – Kaluram @ Kalu before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 26/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.432/2013x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent
No.15/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584/2013x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Kamal Singh has
return unserved with the report that he has absconded from the village
since last five years.

Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Kamal
Singh to secure his presence before this Court.

Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur is directed to furnish the
quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made
by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Kamal Singh.

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the
appellant-Kamal Singh is not received.

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Kamal
Singh.

List on 08/01/2019.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1132/2014x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the report regarding
death of appellant-Jagdish is not received.

Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against
the appellant-Jagdish for securing his presence before this Court on
13/11/2018.

List on 13/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.803/2012x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
It is pointed out by the Office that applicant No.3-Omprakash was
present before the Registry of this Court on 15/11/2017 and he has
signed the order sheet and Registry gave him next date of appearance on
16/04/2018, however, on the aforesaid date applicant No.3-Omprakash
was not present before the Registry of this Court. From the perusal of
the order sheets this report is found correct.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant
No.3-Omprakash before this Court on 10/12/2018.

List on 10/12/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1102/2015x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Ramesh received
unserved with the report that he has been convicted by the Sessions
Court, Ratlam for the offence punishable under
Sections 452 and 354 of
the IPC for a period of 1 year and he is serving the jail sentence in
District Jail, Ratlam.

Let production warrant be issued against the applicant-Ramesh for
securing his presence before this Court on 25/10/2018.

List on 25/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1629/2015x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No. 1002/2018, an
application for condonation of the applicant-Gopal, however, neither the
applicant nor his counsel is present today before this Court, therefore,
IA No. 1002/2018 is hereby dismissed.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant-
Gopal for securing his presence before this Court on 20/11/2018.

List on 20/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1635/2015x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the appellants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant issued against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh is
not received.

Let fresh bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- be issued
against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh for securing his presence before
this Court on 16/11/2018.

List on 16/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.813/2016x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.883/2016x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against applicant-Chhaganlal
received unserved with the report that he was not found on the given
address.

Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against
applicant-Chhaganlal for securing his presence before this Court on
20/11/2018.

List on 20/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1494/2016x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.564/2017x
Indore dated :05/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 22293/2018
(Nishchal Poundrik Vs. Smt. Suchitra Ors.)
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.

Heard.

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “
Cr.P.C.”) for quashment of
proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under
Sections 12 and 23 of Protection
of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. The facts of the case which are releant for deciding this petition are
that applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife
and their marriage was solemnized on 03/12/2015 at Bhopal as per Hindu
rituals and customs. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint case on
03/05/2017 against the applicant and his parents alleging cruel treatment
towards her. The trial Court, vide order dated 03/05/2017 called the report
of Project Officer and directed to registered the case against the applicant,
which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has
failed to appreciate that as per para 9 of the complaint filed by the
respondent No.1, it has been alleged that she was thrown out of the house
in March, 2016. Hence the cause of action arose to the complainant in
March, 2016, however, she has filed the complaint on 03/05/2017 i.e. After
13 months from the cause of action arose to her to file the complaint. As
per Provision 28 of the Act provides the procedure for the proceedings
under
Sections 12, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the Act and clearly state
that this proceedings shall be governed by the Provision of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Act further
prohibits the court from laying down its on procedure for disposal of an
application under
Section 12 or sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Act.
Maximum punishment for violation of any of the order passed in
Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 has been provided under
Section 31 of the Act, wherein
the maximum punishment for the breach of any of the order passed under
this Act has been provided for maximum period of one year or within fine,
which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both. Chapter 36 of the
Cr.P.C.,
1973 provides for limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. It is
further submitted that in the sub-section 2 of Section 468 of the
Cr.P.C.,
1973, it is clearly mentioned that the limitation period shall be one year for
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for
quashment of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending
before the Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under
Sections 12
and
23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the
ground of limitation.

4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.3/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Rebutting the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 submitted that any aggrieved person can file a complaint before the
Protection Officer or the Magistrate. The present petition is filed under
the provisions of
Section 12 of the Act, 2005 and not under Section 31 of
the Domestic Violence Act, so the provision of
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
neither applicable nor the petition is barred under this provision.

7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that marriagae
of the applicant with the respondent No.1 solemnized on 03/12/2015 at
Bhopal as per Hindu rituals and customs. As per the allegation the
respondent No.1 was ousted from her matrimonial house by the applicant
No.1 in the month of March, 2016 and she has filed the complaint against
the applicant before the trial Court on 03/05/2017 for the offence
punishable under
Sections 23 and 12 of the Act. The Hon’ble apex Court in
the case of
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183, has observed
as under:-

“12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in
looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act,
2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into
force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while
passing an order under
Section 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our
view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a
wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer
doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to
the protection of the PWD Act, 2005,”

8. In Yogesh Anantrai Bhatt and others Vs. State of Gujrat and
another, 2017 Cri.L.J.615, Gujrat High Court has held as under :-

“In view of above discussion, if we scrutinize the different provisions of
different sections under which some reliefs can be claimed, it becomes
clear that as per
section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person is permitted to
present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under
this Act and the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic
incident reported and received by him from the Protection officer also.
Further provision of
Section 12 deals with jurisdiction of the Court in
passing appropriate orders for compensation, etc. whereas sub-section
(3) makes it clear that every application under sub-section (1) is to be
filed in a prescribed form. So practically
section 12 is enabling provision
to file an application, whereas
sections 18 to 22 are providing for rights
of the aggrieved person to seek different reliefs like protection,residence,
monetary relief, custody of minor and compensation. For all such reliefs,
when provisions of the Code are to be followed, then practically there is
no limitation prescribed under the Code for any of such reliefs viz.
protection, residence, monetary relief, custody of minor and
compensation. However, when
section 28 says that procedure is to be
followed as per the provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code, then it
amounts to dealing with an application under
section 12 as an
application for all such orders and nothing more than that, more
particularly when
section 468 of the Code is not providing limitation for
any such proceedings either under
the Code itself where provision for
maintenance is there under
section 125, if we peruse the provision of
section 468 of the Code,which specifically talks about bar to take
cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Therefore, it is quite
clear and certain that cognizance of offence is to be taken and thereby
when there is no incident of commission of any offence while applying
under
section 12 for any of the orders under sections 18 to 22 which are
referred hereinabove, since there are no offences, there is no reason for
taking cognizance and, therefore, there is no reason to rely upon the
provisions of
section 468 of the Code in case of an application under
section 12 of the DV Act. To be more precise, if we peruse the provisions
of
section 468, then also it becomes clear that the period of limitation is
referred with the period of punishment i.e. limitation would be six months,
if the offence punishable with fine only; one year for the offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and
three years for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Therefore, when penal
provision is only under
section 31 of the DV Act, the provisions of section
468 of the Code would be applicable only when there is an application
under
section 31 of the DV Act and not otherwise. It is clear position that
section 31 of the DV Act provides for imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to
Rs.20,000/- or with both for breach of protection order or of an interim
protection order by the respondent and, therefore, limitation would be
applicable only after breach of an order in an application under
section
12 and, therefore, such limitation cannot be applicable at the stage of an
application under
section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22. Thereby,
it is certain that if there is a breach of an order in an application under
section 12 or any of the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 then and then only
the application under
section 31 is to be filed within one year from the
date of such breach and not thereafter, and thereby it cannot be said that
an applications under
section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22 are
also required to be filed within a period of 12 months because in that
case, when there is no penal provision,there is no reason to consider
limitation at all.”

9. Keeping all the facts and circumstances as stated above, the legal
proposition as above mentioned, there is no merit in the arguments raised
by the learned counsel for the applicant. The impugned orders do not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity, hence, do not required any
interference.

10. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information
and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 8775/2018x
(Piyush Vs. State of M.P. Ors.)
Applicant is present in person.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

ORDER
( 05 /10/2018)
The applicant has challenged the order dated 27/01/2018, passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.
27461/2015, whereby the application filed by the applicant under
Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against
respondent No.2 has been rejected.

2. The facts are lying in narrow compass are that on 14/04/2015,
FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 registered at Police-Station
Sarafa, Indore against Vijay Singh Chandel agitating that on
14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali
Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold
necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing to his son Vikram
Verma after retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the
aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the applicant went to the
jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his necklace then
respondent No.2 informed him that he has given the aforesaid
necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost
the same. Then respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh
Chandel and on that basis an offence under
Section 406 of the IPC
was registered against aforesaid Vijay Singh Chandel. After
completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.

3. Applicant is submitted that he has filed an application under
Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against
respondent No. 2, who is the Proprietor of Ms. Roopal Jwellery shop
and he was also present at the shop when the applicant/complainant
handed over the necklace to Vikram Verma. He further submitted that
respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma lodged the FIR only against
Vijay Singh Chandel to Police-Station-Sarafa, whereas the necklace
was received by Vikram Verma and respondent No.2-Satish Chandra
Sharma, however, no report was lodged against them. Respondent
No.2 Satish Chandra Verma is also involved in the misappropriation of
the necklace belongs to the applicant . There are CCTV cameras’
installed in the shop of the respondent No.2 but no CCTV footage was
provided by him to the police so that it cannot be discovered that who
has taken the aforesaid necklace. Therefore, respondent No.2-Satish
Chandra Verma is the person, who is also involved in the
misappropriation of the necklace belongs to the applicant. Inspite of
that Police has not made him accused, hence, he also be impleaded as
accused in the case. But the aforesaid application was dismissed
without considering the material available on record, which was
brought by the applicant. It is also submitted that the trial Court has
committed an error of law in rejecting his application filed under
Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impugned order
deserves to be set-aside and the trial Court be directed to take
cognizance for the offence under
Section 406 of the IPC against
respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma.

4. On the other hand respondents contended that the
impugned order is not suffered from any perversity, therefore, it
may not be interfered.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

6. Provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is read as under”

” 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial
of , an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being
the accused as committed any offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such
person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be
arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may required,
for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or
upon summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the
inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-
section (1) then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be
commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may
proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court
took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced.”

7. It is clear that power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the trial Court at any stage during the trial before
conclusion of the trial. The trial Court can summon any person as
accused and face the trial on going on case. Once the trial Court
finds that there is evidence against such person, on the basis of
which evidence, it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty
for the offence. “The Evidence” herein means material provided
before the Court during trial.

8. In the present case, the applicant has filed private complaint
against Vikram Verma and present respondent-Satish Chandra
Verma for the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the IPC
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
Considering the material placed on record the Court of the view
that prima-facie no case is made out against respondent No.2-
Satish Chandra Verma and on that basis the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class has refused to take cognizance for the

offence under Section 406 of the IPC against him. Feeling

aggrieved by the aforesaid order , a revision petition has been filed by
the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R.
No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby
the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court and
dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the
ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is
made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how
and in what manner view taken by the trial court is plausible. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicant has preferred a
petitioner under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing M.Cr.C. No.
13327/2018 before this Court, which is also dismissed by this Court
today by affirming the order of the Courts’ below.

9. In the case of S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary Patna, AIR
1983 (SC) 598, held that though a person against whom a complaint is
filed alongwith some other person and who after an enquiry under
Section 202 is not proceeded against by the Court, he can be
summoned at a later stage under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to stand
trial for the very same or connected offence or offences alongwith the
other person against who process had been issued earlier by the Court.
Even when an order of the Magistrate declining to issue process under
Section 202 is confirmed by a higher court, the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate under
Section 319 remains unaffected if other conditions
are satisfied.

10. In the case of S.C. Jain Vs. State of M.P., JLJ 76 this Court has
held that the cognizance of the offence against any person under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. could be taken only after recording some
evidence.

11. In the present case the applicant has not filed any statement of
the witnesses recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First,Class,
therefore, there is nothing on record on that basis the court can take
cognizance against the respondent No.2- Satish Chandra Verma under
the provision of
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and implead him as an
accused in the aforesaid crime. Hence, the Courts’ below have not
committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant
under
Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C.

12. Taking this view of the matter this Court is of the view that
interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted.
Consequently, this petition filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has
failed and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information
and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x
(Piyush Vs. Vikram Ors.)
Applicant is present in person.

Heard.

ORDER
( 05 /10/2018 )
This application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been
filed the applicant/complainant for assailing the order dated
15/12/2017 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in
Cr.R. No. 151/2017, whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Indore, vide order dated 15/12/2016 passed in Criminal Case No.
9838178/2016 refused to take cognizance against the respondent
No.2-Satishchandra Verma for the offence under
Sections 120, 409
and
420 of the IPC on the private complaint filed by the applicant has
been affirmed.

2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present
petition are that the applicant filed the private complaint against the
respondents for commission of offence under
Section 406 of the IPC
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on
14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali
Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold
necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and the
respondent No.1 after retaining the same gave him an
acknowledgment of the aforesaid necklace. On the next day when
applicant went to the jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his
necklace then respondent No.1 informed informed him that he has
given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing,
however, he has lost the same and he assured him that after making
the same weighted gold necklace, he will provide him, however, he
has not return the aforesaid necklace and by doing this respondents
have committed criminal breach of trust. The applicant/complainant
went to the police for lodging the FIR against the respondents but as
they are influential persons that is why the police refused to take any
action against the respondents, therefore, he was forced to file private
complaint against the respondents before the Court.

3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the
complainant and his witnesses were recorded under
Section 200 and
202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore
for taking cognizance against the respondents. After recording the
statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process
against the respondent No.1 only upon finding the prima-facie case
against him for the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the IPC.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of refusing to take cognizance against
the respondent No.2, a revision petition has been filed by the
respondent before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R.
No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby
the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court
and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the
ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is
made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how
and in what manner view taken by the trial court is not plausible. No
perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. The aforesaid
order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

4. Applicant contended that there is prima-facie material available
on record to made out offence under
Sections 406 of the IPC against
respondent No.2-Satishchandra Verma and Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate has committed error in refusing to take cognizance against
respondent No.2. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the
respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is the proprietor of Ms.
Roopali Jwellery shop and he was also present at the shop when the
applicant/complainant handed over the necklace to the respondent
No.1. He further submitted that although respondent No.2-
Satishchandra Verma lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel at
Police-Station-Sarafa for misappropriation of the necklace, however,
he has collusion with Vijay Singh Chandel received Rs.50,000/- from
Geeta Chandel-sister of the Vijay Singh Chandel as a value of the
necklace, which has been intruested to him, which clearly indicates
that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is also involved in the alleged
offence. Inspite of that the Courts’ below have committed error in
refusing to take cognizance against the respondent No.2. Therefore, he
prayed for the quashment of the orders passed by the Courts’ below.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and
persused the record.

6. The statement of the complaint and his wife recorded
under
Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are
specific allegations have been levelled against the respondent
No.2 that he was also intrusted with necklace, however, no such
averments have been made in the complaint filed by the
applicant. In the aforesaid complaint the only allegation is made
against respondent No.1-Vikram Verma that he has received the
necklace for repairing work. From the statement of the applicant
recorded under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that the
applicant has exaggerated his statement with intend to implicate
respondent No.2 in the afaoresaid offence. It is also pertinent to
note here that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is the person, who
has lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel for
misappropriation of the necklace of the applicant and on that
basis the police registered an FIR for the offence under
Section
406 of the IPC against him. The applicant has not filed any
document before the trial Court that respondent No.2 received
any amount from Vijay Singh Chandel, in lieu of the necklace,
which has been lost by him. Taking this view of the matter this
Court is of the view that the Courts’ below have not committed
any error in refusing to take cognizance against respondent
No.2. The applicant has challenged by order passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore before the
revisional Court, however, aforesaid revision petition has been
dismissed. The revisional Court has rightly held that respondent
No.2 is not made a party in the revision petition, therefore,
without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, the Court
cannot take any adverse action against him.

7. Having carefully considered the material brought on record, it is
clear that interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not
warranted. Consequently, this petition filed under
Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information
and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH INDORE
M.Cr.C. No. 6201/2018x
(Vikram Verma Vs. Piyush)

Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Respondent present in person.

Heard.

ORDER
(05 /10/2018)
This application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been
filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 15/12/2017 passed by
the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. 346/2017,
whereby order dated 15/12/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 9838178/2016 for taking the
cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent has been
affirmed.

2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present
petition are that the respondent filed the private complaint against the
applicant for commission of offence under
Section 406 of the IPC
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on
14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. complainant/respondent came to the
Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop of the applicant and he handed over one
antique gold necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and
the applicant retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the
aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the complainant went to the
jwellery shop of the applicant for taking his necklace then applicant
informed him that he has given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh
Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost the same and he assured
him that after making the same weighted gold necklace, he will
provide him. Later on he has not return the aforesaid necklace and by
doing this he has committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant
went to the police for lodging the FIR against the applicant but as
applicant is influential person that is why the police refused to take
any action against the applicant, therefore, he was forced to file
private complaint against the applicant before the Court.

3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the
complainant and his witnesses were recorded under
Section 200 and
202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore
for taking cognizance against the applicant. After recording the
statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process
against the applicant upon finding the prima-facie case against him for
the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the IPC. Feeling
aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, a revision petition has
been filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was
registered as Cr.R. No. 346/2017 and the final order was passed on
15/12/2017, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed
by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the
applicant on the ground that looking to the material available on
record the trial Court has not committed any mistake in taking
cognizance for the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the IPC.
The aforesaid order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant
petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no
prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore has committed an error in
taking cognizance against the applicant for the offence punishable
under
Section 406 of the IPC. The courts’ below have ignored the fact
that regarding the same incident FIR was registered at Police-Station
Sarafa bearing Crime No. 77/2015 under
Section 406 of the IPC
against Vijay Singh Chandel, the person who was intrusted with
necklace and he misappropriated it. In the aforesaid criminal case the
applicant is the witness and police has also recorded his statement
under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, for the same incident, he
cannot be prosecuted. From the averment of the complaint and
statement of the complainant and his witnesses recroded under
Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., does not indicate regarding
involvement of the applicant in the present crime. The entire
proceedings are misuse of process of law, therefore, it deserves
to be quashed.

5. On the other hand respondent contended that the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore has not committed any error of
law in taking cognizance against the applicant as there exist
prima-facie case against him. The impugned orders does not
suffer from any perversity, therefore, no interference is called for.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and persused
the record.

7. The averments of the complaint and the statement of the
complainant and his wife recorded under
Sections 200 and 202
of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are specific allegations have been
levelled against the applicant for commission of offence under
Section 406 of the IPC. There is sufficient material available on
record for taking the cognizance against applicant. The
complainant handed over one gold necklace weighted 66 gms. to
the applicant for the purpose of repairing and the same was
retained by him by issuing acknowledgment. When the
complainant came to take his necklace then applicant informed
him that the aforesaid necklace was sent to Vijay Singh Chandel
for repairing work but he has lost it. Father of the applicant-
Satish Verma lodged the report against Vijay Singh Chandel,
however, aforesaid necklace has not been recovered. The
applicant is the person, who actually received the necklace and it
is alleged that he has handed over it to Vijay Singh Chandel, but
the applicant is not made accused in the case registered at
Police-Station-Sarafa, therefore, he cannot take plea that he
cannot be prosecuted for the same offence, which has already
been registered by the police.

8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and
Ors, 2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the opinion of the High Court that the averments made in the
complaint are imaginary is not based on any material. Even
assuming that the complainant had a score to settle against the
accused, the same by itself may not be a ground to quash the
entire criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that
at least a prima-facie case has been establish in view of the
evidence on record. The entire proceedings are misuse of
process of law, therefore, the present proceedings deserve to be
quashed.

9. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar
vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, has cautioned the
High Court while exercising the power under
Section 482 of
CrPC in the following manner :-

“22. The issue being examined in the instant case is
the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of
the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of
issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even
at the stage of framing of charges. These are all
stages before the commencement of the actual trial.
The same parameters would naturally be available for
later stages as well. The power vested in the High
Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages
referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching
consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the
prosecution’s/ complainant’s case without allowing
the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution,
care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High
Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material
produced by the accused is such, that would lead to
the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on
sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material
produced is such, as would rule out and displace the
assertions contained in the charges levelled against
the accused; and the material produced is such, as
would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the
allegations contained in the accusations levelled by
the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to
rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by
the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of
recording any evidence. For this the material relied
upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or
alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being
material of sterling and impeccable quality. The
material relied upon by the accused should be such,
as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false.
In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High
Court would persuade it to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal
proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process
of the court, andsecure the ends of justice.”

10. Having carefully considered the law laid down by the apex
Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) and material brought on
record, it is clear that interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
not warranted, however, the detail discussion on the material
furnished by the applicant will prejudice his defence before the trial
Court. Consequently, this petition filed under
Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information
and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No. 727/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC
for transferring the MJC No. 290/2013 (Deepak Vs. Jyoti) from the
Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.

2. In the present case the respondent has moved an application under
Section 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from
the applicant, which is pending for the consideration of the application
filed under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the case is pending since 2013 and the
applicant has attending the Court regularly but due to physical problem
it is rather difficult for her to come to Indore on every date of hearing,
therefore, he prayed for transfer of MJC No. 290/2013 from Family
Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and
prayed for its rejection.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as
Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is
suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal
to Indore. The applicant is not required to attend every date of hearing
and she can very well represented by her counsel. Under these
circumstances, at this stage no sufficient ground is made out to transfer
the MJC No. 290/2013 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court,
Bhopal.

6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family
Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 290/2013 as early
as possible.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for
information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 37403/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated 05/09/2018
passed in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had preferred a
Criminal Revision No.4274/2018 before this Court challenging the order of
framing of charges for the offence under
Section 306/34 of the IPC alongwith
Section 3/4 of the Protection of Debotrs Act, which was allowed by this Court,
vide order dated05/09/2018. But due to typographical error in the order passed
by this Court Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act could not be mentioned,
therefore, he prayed for modification in the impugned order.

Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed.
Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 05/09/2018 passed in Cr.R. No.
4274/2018 is modified as under:

“12. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and charge with regard to the offence
under
Section 306/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Debtors Act against
the applicant-Santosh is hereby quashed. ”

This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 05/09/2018 passed
in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R.
No.4274/2018.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 18348/2017
Indore dated :09/10/2018
Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav
Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri R.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /10/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 of the
Cr.P.C. for transferring the MJC No. 200/2014 (Jyoti Vs. Deepak) from
the Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case is
pending since 2014 and the applicant has attending the Court regularly
but in pursuance of some medical complications and medical advise, it
is difficult for the applicant to mark her presence in each and every date
before the Family Court, Indore, therefore, he prayed for transfer of
MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application
contending that the case is pending since 2014 and now it has reached at
the stage of evidence, however, the applicant is dragging the
proceedings, therefore, he prayed that no sufficient ground is available
to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family
Court, Bhopal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as
Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is
suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal
to Indore. The case is listed for taking evidence of the parties and the
applicant herself is not adducing any evidence and the applicant is not
required to attend every date of hearing and she can very well
represented by her counsel. Under these circumstances, at this stage no
sufficient ground is made out to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from
Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal.

6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family
Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 200/2014 as early
as possible.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for
information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.12945/2018x
(Ravindra Ors. Vs. Hemlata Ors.)
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.

The applicants have preferred this petitioner under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the
Cr.P.C.’) for
quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 230/2017, pending
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar for the
offence punishable under
Sections 12, 17 and 23(2) of the Protection
of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the PWDV
Act’).

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants
accepted that appeal is provided under
Section 29 of the PWDV Act,
hence she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to
file an appeal before the appropriate forum.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty. If the applicants are preferred an appeal before the
trial Court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith
application for condonation of delay, then same shall be considered
liberally.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8284/2017x
(
State of M.P. vs. Ali Hussain)
Indore dated :01/10/2018

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

Heard.

ORDER

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The Code’) for the grant leave to

appeal against judgment dated 28/02/2017 passed by Ist Additional

Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in S.T. No. 17/2016, whereby the respondent has

been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354(a)(i)

(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Secual

Offences Act, 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23/10/2015 at about 4:00 p.m., the

victim was alone in her house, the respondent came to her house and asked

for water when she refused to give him water then respondent entered into

her house and caught hold her hand with intend to outrage her modesty,

when she shouted then respondent fled away from the spot. The matter has

been reported to Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain, on which basis police

registered FIR bearing Crime No. 635/2015 for the offence punishable

under Sections 452, 354(a)(i)(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the

Protection of Children from Secual Offences Act, 2012. During
investigation statement of the witnesses have been record and respondent

has been arrested and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has

been filed.

3. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence available on

record by impugned judgment held that there are material discrepancies in

the statement of the victim and it has also come that in the morning of the

date of alleged incident a quarrel has taken place between the family

members of the victim and the respondent, therefore, the story of the

prosecution appears to be suspicious. Thus, prosecution has failed to

establish charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,

the trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the charges levelled against

him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant/State has

preferred this petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave

to against impugned judgment.

4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the victim is

found to be a minor girl and the respondent after entered into her house

caught hold her hand with intent to molest her. Under these circumstances

the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid

charges. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal against impugned

judgment.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the

record.

6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, I am of the view that the

learned trial Court after considering the material discrepancies in the

statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the

Cr.P.C. has come to the conclusion that her statement are not reliable.

Independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story and it

has also come on record that in the morning of the date of incident there

was a quarrel taken place between the respondent and family members of

the victim, under these circumstances an opportunity of false implication of

the respondent cannot be rulled out, therefore, the prosecution has failed to

establish the charges against the applicant. Hence, the finding recorded by

the learned trial Court is just and proper and it does not appear to be

perversed.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting

admission. Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is

hereby dismissed summarily.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4415/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri I.U. Quazi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharati Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6681/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under
Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short
‘the Act’) and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months
S.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas, vide order dated 23/02/2016 passed
in Criminal Case No. 4143/2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment, they have challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence
before the Court of Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 100124/2016, which
was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas by order
dated 16/08/2018 by affirming the judgment passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dewas. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid
judgments applicants have preferred this Revision Petition before this
Court.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did
not misuse the liberty so granted to them. It is further submitted that
provision of
Section 13(2) of the Act is not complied with. The report
of the Public Analyst does not clarified that what were the contents
under lay in the sample, due to which it was found to be adulterated.
As per CFSL report only misbranding was detected and no defect was
found in the quality of the sample, however the applicants are not the
manufacturer of the product. The trial Court as well as the appellate
Court has committed an error in not giving the benefit of protection
under
Section 19(2) of the Act to the applicants. It is further submitted
that there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the
applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short
sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present
revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending
that the sample which has been taken by the Food Inspector found to
be adulterated. Notice under
Section 13(2) of the Act was given to the
applicants and thereafter, the applicants apply for sending the
aforesaid sample to CFSL . As per the CFSL report the product was
found to be mis-branded, therefore, the trial Court convicted the
applicants for the aforesaid offence and their conviction has been
affirmed by the appellate Court. It is also pointed out by the learned
Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due
appreciation of the material available on record found the charges
proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He further
submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding
reappreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances
he prays for rejection of the application.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly,
IA No. 6681/2018 is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17038/2018
(
Jamila Bi vs. Lakhan Ors.)
Indore dated :04/10/2018

Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard.

ORDER

( 04 /10/2018)

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The Code’) for the grant leave to appeal against

judgment dated 16/03/2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in

Cr.A. Nos. 120/2017, 125/2017 and 126/2017, whereby learned appellate Court set

aside the judgment dated 19/07/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Dhar passed in Criminal Case No. 403762/2011 and acquitted the respondent

Nos. 1 to 6 from the charge for offence punishable under Sections 325/149 and

147 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08/10/2011, the applicant/complainant

lodged a FIR against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging that they have hurled filthy

languages and assaulted her with stick and fists, due to which she sustained

injuries. On the basis of aforesaid report offence punishable under Sections 147,

294, 323/149 and 506 of the IPC was registered against respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The

applicant/complainant was sent to the medical examination and in the X-ray report

a fracture was detected, hence police added for offence under Section 325 of the

IPC against the respondents. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar.

3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence available on

record convicted the respondents for the offence under Sections 325/149 and 147 of

the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

for each offence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction

respondents have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was allowed

by the impugned judgment and the respondents were acquitted from the aforesaid

charges, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court in

para Nos. 13,14,15, 16 and 18 of its judgment, this Court is of the view that no case

for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is made out. Learned

counsel for the applicant could not point out that how and in what manner the view

taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No

perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgment.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting admission.

Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed

summarily.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.770/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

As per the communication dated 09/12/2017, received from
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore he has not directed the
police-station-Banganga, Indore for recalling of the bailable warrant
issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu S/o Moolchandra
Chouhan.]
Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore has also
clarified that the jail sentence of the appellant-Sonu was suspended
by him till 02/05/2017, however, no order of suspension of his jail
sentence was received upto 02/05/2017. The appellant Raju was also
not appeared on the aforesaid dates, therefore, a non-bailable warrant
of arrest was issued against appellant-Sonu so that he may be sent to
the custody for serving the jail sentence but the aforesaid warrant
could not be executed. On 01/08/2017, appellant-Sonu appeared
before the Court alongwith his counsel and he has produced the copy
of the order dated 02/05/2017 passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 770/2017, by which his jail sentence was suspended. His
counsel informed that the High Court fixed the date 12/09/2017 for
appearance of the appellant-Sonu, hence, in compliance of the
aforesaid order, he accepted the bail bonds executed by the appellant
and thereafter, he has directed the Police Station Banganga, Indore
for recalling non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant by
him. He has not directed the police-station Banganga for recalling
the bailable warrant issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu.

Looking to the aforesaid explanation given by the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, no further action is required.

Meanwhile, non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against
appellant-Sonu for securing his presence before this Court on
29/10/2018.

List on 29/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.839/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. 1770/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Manohar S.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19376/2017, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 25 days in filing this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an
indigent person and on the date of pronouncement of judgment, he was
sent to jail for serving out remaining part of his jail sentence, therefore,
he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period. Under
these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of delay.

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor.

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
condone the delay.

Accordingly, IA No.19376/2017 is allowed and delay of 25 days in
filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4881/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.5896/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent No.2 on admission as well as on IA No.
5146/2017, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within
six weeks.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6420/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7788/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during pendency of
this petition final order has already been passed by the Family Court,
Indore, therefore, this petition has become rendered infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been
rendered infructuous.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8573/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10263/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 8665/2017, an
application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 17605/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be
issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 19327/2017,
an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.21076/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 15 days
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.22693/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect
pointed out by the Office within two weeks.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23211/2017x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1811/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1938/2018x
Indore dated : 01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the
Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 07/10/2017 passed by the Special Judge
in Special S.t. No. 68/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under
Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I.
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under
Section
363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and for the offence punishable under
Section 366 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with
usual default stipulation respectively.

The present appeal has been barred by 86 days and the appellant
has filed an application under
Section 5 of the limitation Act for
condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the present appeal, however,
he has not file affidavit in support of this application. Appellant has
granted sufficient opportunities to file the same but he has not complied
with the orders passed by this Court.

Today none appeared on behalf of the appellant and on earlier
occasions i.e. 24/07/2018, 27/04/2018, 10/04/2018 and 19/03/2018 also
none appeared on behalf of the appellant, which indicates that the
appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of
prosecution.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 4487/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice
be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 7011/2018,
an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 4551/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 7010/2018, an
application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4571/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Darshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7
days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office .

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 4583/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Tushar Bhedasgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants.
On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice
be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 6892/2018,
an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5177/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defects
pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 5659/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defect
pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 587/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 6251/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 6319/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 7
days time to cure the dfects pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 6381/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 31126/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.2/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect
pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 35743/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defects
pointed out by the Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 36617/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7
days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 36795/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three
weeks time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37321/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
Office within 7 working days.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1485/2012x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Today the case is listed for default of appearance of appellant-
Amar Singh. The applicant could not appear before this Court on
13/03/2018.

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
listed for today for non-appearance of appellant-Amar Singh inspite of
that appellant is not present today, therefore, IA No. 1805/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant-
Amar Singh is hereby dismissed.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant

-Amar Singh for securing his presence before this Court.

List on 29/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.536/2013
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant No.1-
Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court on 28/08/2018,
however, even after the service of the said warrant he has not appeared
before this Court on 28/08/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant
No.1-Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court.

List on 29/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.596/2015x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant No.1-Yogesh is not present today.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No.1 – Yogesh before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 22/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.64/2016x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
None for the respondents.

As per Office report service report of bailable warrant issued
against respondent No.2-Rakesh is still awaited.

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the
week commencing 29/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.287/2016x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per Office report service report of non-bailable warrant issued
against appellant-Vikas is still awaited.

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the
week commencing 12/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.473/2016x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
As per Office report appellant-Ravi has failed to mark his presence
before this Court on 05/07/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ravi
for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.

List on 19/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.520/2016x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a
weeks time to pay the process fee.

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be
issued to the respondent by ordinary as well as by registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

In default of payment of process fee within 7 working days, this
appeal shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1008/2016x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan has
return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given
address and he has gone to Ajmer in search of employment.

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan
to secure his presence before this Court.

Superintendent of Police, Ratlam is directed to furnish the
quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made
by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Monu @ Mohan.

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the
appellant-Monu @ Mohan is not received.

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Monu
@ Mohan.

List on 01/02/2019.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.302/2014x
(Jahid Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:01/10/2018
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5231/2018, which
is repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant – Jahid.

Appellant – Jahid has been found guilty for offence under Section
8/
15(C) of the NDPS Act and and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment
of the fine to undergo additional one year of R.I.

After hearing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the parties this Court is of the view that earlier application of the
appellant was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 02/04/2018 and
thereafter, no change of circumstance is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant.

Accordingly, IA No. 5231/2018 is hereby dismissed.
List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38320/2018x
(Navbheet Kumar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 11/2016, Police Station-
Crime Branch, Indore District-Indore, concerning offences under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/120-B of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 39236/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 39287/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Ms. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 39296/2018x
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39300/2018x
(Jitendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :01/10/2018
Shri Akash Rathi. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 297/2018, Police Station-
Boda, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under
Section 376 of the
IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7325/2018x
(Manish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:29/09/2018
Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7067/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant – Manish.

Appellant – Manish has been found guilty for offence under
Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under
Section 7/8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, he has been
sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with
default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so
granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that the jail
sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court
since 10/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take
sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not
suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Manish.

Accordingly, I.A. No.7067/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Manish in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4622/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Let record of the Courts’ below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 939/2001x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue on IA No. 5673/2018, an application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuance of passport.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1384/2015x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time
to file appropriate application to substitute the service of notice on
respondent No.2.

List in the week commencing 08/10/2018.
IR to continue till next date of hearing.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 118/2016x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue the matter.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 1584/2016x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
None for the applicants.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2.

Today none appeared on behalf of the applicants and o n earlier
occasions on 11/12/2017 and 29/08/2017 also none appeared on
behalf of the applicants, which clearly indicates that the applicant is
no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.12257/2016x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has already
supplied the copy petition alongwith annexures to the respondent No.2.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.661/2017x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
None for the parties.

Adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.709/2017x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
None for the parties.

Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9563/2017x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

None for the respondents, though served.
Heard on IA No. 8213/2017, an application under
Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing this petition
filed under
Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with affidavit of K.K. Sharma, DSP Head Quarter Dewas,
sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.

Accordingly, IA No. 8213/2017 is allowed and delay of 44 days in
filing this petition is hereby condoned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25613/2017x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Respondent has been acquitted by the Ist Additional Sessions
Judge, Shajapur, vide order dated 31/08/2017 passed in ST No. 23/2017
from the charges for offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366,
366(A) and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section 3(A)/4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Offence under
Section 4 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is punishable
with life imprisonment, therefore, it should be heard by the Division
Bench.

Office is directed to examine and list before appropriate Bench.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.194/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
matteer on the ground that Senior counsel is not available today to argue
the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List in the week commencing 09/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3540/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of appeal.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
List in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4146/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
None for the parties.

Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35734/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35067/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four
weeks time to argue the matter regarding question of mainability.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34215/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
weeks time to comply with order dated 07/09/2018.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3269/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3426/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for and is granted
two weeks time to file copy of the proceedings of the trial Court.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3433/2018x
Indore dated :29/09/2018
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.788/2016X
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri V.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.

Heard.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19067/2018X
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
for relexation of the condition imposed by this Court, vide order datd
14/11/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 20777/2017, by which they have been
released on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report from the
concerned police-station that the applicants complied with the direction
made by this Court, vide order dated 14/11/2017 in M.Cr.C. No.
20777/2017, by which they were directed to mark their presence in the
concerned police-station on every first sunday of every month between
10:00 a.m. To 12:00 noon.

List after one week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.22569/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the applicant.

Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23172/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the applicant.

Adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.24411/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.24414/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.24474/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.26164/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
applicant/State.

Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.26287/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one
weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.

List after one week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 6635/2015x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the applicant.

Today none appeared on behalf of the applicant and o n earlier
occasions on 17/08/2017,01/05/2017, 24/03/2017 and 13/01/2017
also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which clearly indicates
that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.6693/2016x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue the matter.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.6817/2016x
Indore dated :28/09/2018

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the applicant/State.
Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue the matter.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 8417/2016x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after eight weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. 639/2017
Indore dated :28/09/2018

Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent, even after the service of notice.
Let record of the Family Court be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 4119/2017x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Parties through their counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties are
involving in compromise discussion, hence, he prays for time to argue
the matter.

By way of last indulgence time is granted.
List after four weeks.

                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. 3157/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018

Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue the matter.

List thereafter.

                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. 6326/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the parties.
Adjoured.
List after four weeks.
(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. 6772/2018x
Indore dated :28/09/2018

Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6888/2018, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 34 days in filing this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
illetrate and person and he is not having any knowledge regarding
limitation, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed
time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of
delay.

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor.

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
condone the delay.

Accordingly, IA No. 6888/2018 is allowed and delay of 34 days in
filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.880/2010x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
None for the appellant .

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per Office report appellant-Ranu has failed to mark his
presence before this Court on 18/06/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ranu
for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.

List on 19/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.814/2011x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant/State.
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
From the perusal of the record it appears that IA No. 5092/2018 has
already been decided by this Court, vide order dated 27/07/2018.

Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1111/2011x
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2-
Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh is detained in Central Jail-Bherugarh,
Ujjain in another case.

Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.2-
Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh for securing his presence before this Court
on 23/10/2018.

List 23/10/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38206/2018x
(Shyam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.3/2018, Police Station-Badwah,
District-Khargone, concerning offences under
Sections 363, 366(A),
344,376, 376(2)(n) and 328 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3 /4 and
5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38204/2018x
(Bhure Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.259/2018, Police Station-
Gandhwani, District-Dhar, concerning offence under
Sections 376 and
506 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38180/2018x
( Chinu @ Vijendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :28/09/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.608/2017, Police Station-
Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under
Sections
307,
302, 148 and 149 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after receiving the balastic expert report.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3303/2018x
Indore dated :18/07/2018
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondenty prays for and is granted a weeks
time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.

List after a week.

(Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 36827/2018x
(Kishore Sharma Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors.)
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Pankaj C. Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "
Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the
order dated 18/05/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal
Revision No. 10/2018, whereby order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case
No. 1160/2014 rejecting the application filed by the applicants under
Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( in short "the
Act") has been upheld.

5. It is not disputed that on 10/07/2012 the Food Safety Officer visited
the premises of respondent No.2 and had taken sample of product
"PANVILAS" pan masala (packed). Thereafter, the same was sent to the
Food Safety Analyst and by report of Food Safety Analyst dated
26/07/2012 the sample was declared to be sub-standard. On 07/12/2013,
the Designated Officer/Deputy Director of Food and Drug Administration,
Jhabua after verifying the entire documents granted sanction of
prosecution against the applicant and lastly on 25/11/2014 a complaint was
filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua, whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Thandla took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter the applicants appeared
before the Court concerned and submitted an application under
Section 77
of the Act. The complaint is filed after delay of more than 1 year and
therefore, it was barred by limitation and complaint should have been
dismissed and no cognizance could have been taken on the same, looking
to the provisions of
Section 77 of the Act the aforesaid application was
dismissed by the learned trial Court presuming that the order of sanction
was granted exercising powers under
Section 30(2)(e) of the Act is an
order for granting extention of limitation under
Section 77 of the Act.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the applicants have filed a
revision petition before the Sessions Court, Jhabua, which was also
dismissed on the ground that contention of the applicants regarding bar of
Section 77 of the Act can be taken up in defence by them. Feeling
dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders the applicants have preferred this
petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the
record.

5. Provisions of Section 77 of the Act provides as under:-

" Section 77. Time limit for prosecutions:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court
shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act after the
expiry of the period of one year from the date of comission
of an offence:

Provived that the Commissioner of Food Safety may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing approve prosecution
within an extended period up to three years."

6. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that time limit for
prosecution under the Act is only one year from the date of
commission of the offence and not from the date of sanction of
prosecution. All the requisite formalities are required to be completed
within 1 years from the date of comission of the offence so that the
accused may not be adversely affected. Admittedly in the present
case complaint has filed on 25/11/2014, which is near by 2 years and
4 months from the date of the commission of the offence.
Section 77
of the Act, 2006 clearly provides that the extention of the limitation
can only be granted by a separate and specific order by assigning the
reasons in writing for the extention of limitation. The powers vested
in the Commissioner under
Section 30(3) and Section 77 are entirely
different.
Section 30 of the Act provides as under:-
"30. Commissioner of Food Safety of the State:-
(1) The State Government shall appoint the Commissioner of
Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food
safety and standards and other requirements laid down under
this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall perform all or
any of the following functions, namely:-

(a) Prohibit in the interest of public health, the manufacture,
storage, distribution or sale of any article of food, either in
the whole of the State or any area or part thereof for such
period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the
order notified in this behalf in the Official Gazzete;

(b) Carry out survey of the industrial units engaged in the
manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out
compliance by such units of the standards notified by the
Food Authority for various articles of food;

(c) Conduct or organise training programmes for the
personnel of the office of the Commissioner of Food Safety
and, on a wider scale, for different segments of food chain for
generating awareness on food safety;

(d) Ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the
standards and other requirements as specified and also ensure
a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability,
transparency and credibility;

(e) Sanction prosecution for offences punishable with
imprisonment under this Act;

(f) Such other functions as the State Government may, in
consultation with the Food Authority , prescribe.
(3) The Commissioner of Food Safety may, by order, delegate,
subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified
in the order, such of his powers and functions under this Act
(except the power to appoint designated officer, Food Safety
officer and food analyst) as he may deem necessary or
expedient to any officer subordinate to him."

Thus an order of sanction for prosecution without a whisper of Section 77
or limitation cannot be presumed to be an order under
Section 77 of the
Act. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has wrongly construed
the powers delegated under
Section 30(3) for grant of Sanction under
Section 30(2)(e) of the Act as delegation of power vested in Commisioner
by virtue of
Section 77 of the Act because the sanction under Section 30(2)

(e) is with regard to prosecution for offences punishable with imprisonment
under the Act, whereas under
Section 77 of the Act, the Commissioner
alone is entitled to grant extension of limitation for reasons to be recorded
in writing under
Section 77 of the Act, therefore, learned Magistrate
cannot take cognizance on the complaint because the Commissioner of
Food Safety has not exercised the powers conferred upon him under the
provisions of
Section 77 of the Act.

8. Resultantly, in view whereof I find merit in this petition and
accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. Consequently the order dated
18/05/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal Revision No.
10/2018 and order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby
set aside, by which the application filed by the applicants under
Section 77
of the Act has been rejected and all the consequential proceedings
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua
against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby quashed.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1226/2013x
(Karan Singh Ors.Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

ORDER
This revision petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14/11/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Shajapur in Cri.Appeal No.505/2011, confirming the judgment dated
24/11/2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, District-
Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 757/2010, by which the applicant
No.1- Karan Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6
months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under
Section 324 of the IPC;
whereas applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under
Section 324/34 of the IPC with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16/10/2010, at about
11:00 p.m., when the complainant was returning after taking the
darshan of Chamdada Mata temple towards his home alongwith Dilip
Singh and Rajendra Singh, while they were passing infront of the
house of Lakhan Singh then Lakhan Singh caught hold him and
started abusing him, thereafter, Karansingh gave a blow from the
back side of farsi on the head of the complainant, due to which blood
was oozing from his head. Dilip and Rajendra saved him. After the
incident, complainant-Bane Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station-
Agar and on that basis case was registered against the applicant
No.1-Karan Singh for the offences punishable under
Section 324 of
the IPC and applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh for the offence
punishable under
Section 324/34 of the IPC . On completion of
investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Agar,
District-Shajapur.After framing the charge and recording the
evidence, the offences under
Sections 324 and 324/34 of the IPC
were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced
as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the
appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence, this revision
petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and
submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the
courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not
properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding,
which is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is further submitted
that both the parties have settled their disputes and they have
entered into compromise. In this regard IA No. 8048/2017, an
application under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compromise has
been filed by them, which is duly verified by the Principal Registrar
of this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that
the applicants have remained in jail for a period of approximately 1
1/2 months and they have no criminal past nor they are involved
in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the
present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for
reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to
the period of imprisonment already undergone.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due
appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the
applicants guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is submitted that the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is
called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence
by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of
complainant-Bane Singh (PW 1), Rajendra Singh (PW 2) and Dr.
Shashank Saxena (PW 3). Hence, considering the material available
on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in
convicting the applicants under
Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC
respectively.

6. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the
considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation coupled
with the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and
the applicants have already remained approximately 1 1/2 months
in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced
to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of
additional fine amount of Rs.2000/-for the offence under
Section 324
and
324/34 of the IPC respectively, within a period of thirty days.
Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to
the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under
Section 357(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of enhanced
fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and fifteen days
RI respectively under
Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC.

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction
and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1440/2016x
Indore dated :27/09/2018
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per office report the applicant-Kalu @ Vishal is not
appeared before the Registry of this Court on 09/04/2018. It is a
matter of bail jump.

Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against
applicant-Kalu @ Vishal for securing his presence before this Court
on 14/11/2018.

List on 14/11/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 705/2014x
Indore dated :27/09/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 35443/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been
filed the applicant for extension of time to deposit the fine amount as
directed in Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 vide order dated
06/11/2012.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has
filed a Criminal Revision before this Court against the judgment dated
08/05/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 14/2012, whereby the applicant was convicted
and sentenced for a period of 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of
Rs.600/- for the offence punishable under
Section 325 of the IPC.

3. Aforesaid revision petition was finally decided by this Court,
vide order dated 06/11/2012 in National Lok Adalat and by that order
the conviction of the applicant was maintained, however, the jail
sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing
the fine amount to Rs.3500/-. It was further directed that, enhanced
amount be deposited within a period of two months else applicant has
to undergo remaining period of sentence. However, the applicant was
not aware about the aforesaid order, therefore, he could not deposit the
enhanced fine amount within stipulated period and the period of two
months from 06/11/2012 has expired long back and if the applicant
will go and try to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, then same
should not be accepted by the trial Court. Now the applicant is ready
to comply the direction issued by this Court vide order dated
06/11/2012. Hence, the order dated 06/11/2012 passed by this Court in
Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 should be modified and the applicant
is further granted 2 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of
fine.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Looking to the reasons mentioned in the application, this
petition is hereby allowed and the applicant is further granted 20 days
time to deposit the enhanced amount of fine before the concerned trial
Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.783/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018

Ms. V. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 2518/2018, an application for deleting the name
of appellant No.2-Sadaji from the cause title of the memo of appeal.

From the perusal of record it appears that learned counsel for the
appellants has filed the photocopy of death certificate of appellate No.2-
Sadaji and according to this appellant No.2-Sadaji has died on
2/10/2017.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verified the factum of
death of appellant No.2-Sadaji and submit its report, thereafter IA No.
2518/2018 will be considered.

List on 26/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.958/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicant No.3-Gyan Singh is not present today.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No.3 - Gyan Singh before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 26/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1057/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No2. - Salman before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 23/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1285/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicant- Bunty S/o Ambaram Chauhan is present in person and he
has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.22744/2017, an
application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 06/11/2017
before the registry of this Court .

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to death in his
family, the applicant could not mark his presence before the Registry of
this Court on 06/11/2017.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
non-appearance of applicant-Bunty on 06/11/2017 before this Court.

Accordingly, IA No.22744/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
applicant- Bunty before this Court on 06/11/2017 is hereby condoned.

Applicant- Bunty is directed to appear before the Office of this Court
on 17/04/2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
Office.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1497/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Today the matter is listed for default of appellant-Santosh @
Ariyabeli. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-
Santosh @ Ariyabeli for securing his presence before this Court on
12/11/2018.

List on 12/11/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1544/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri M.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna received
unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail, Indore from
25/05/2017.

Let production warrant be issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna
for securing his presence before this Court on 30/10/2018.

List on 30/10/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1146/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on IA No. 7033/2018, an application for condonation of
delay in payment of process fee.

On due consideration, IA No. 7033/2018 is allowed.
On payment of fresh process-fee within seven working days, let
notice be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within 3 weeks.

List thereafter.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 32077/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
weeks time to file the certified copy of the order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 493/2018.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 3700/2017x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the
pendency of the present revision, the parties have entered into a
compromise and they have settled all their disputes amicably and no
point of difference exists between them, therefore, the appellants does
not wish to press this revision petition, hence he prayed for withdrawal
of the revision petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 14583/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
None for the applicant, even in second round.
Case is adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 634/2015x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has filed the
death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh on 24/10/2017,
however, it is not on record.

Office is directed to trace the same and placed it on record.
Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 22313/2017x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.S.
Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that learned
counsel for the applicant has not supplied the copy of IA No.
6419/2018 to him.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant gives undertaking
that he has supplied the copy of IA No. 6419/2018 to the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 during the course of the day.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 3843/2018x
(Pappu SinghVs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 26/09/2018
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) has been filed by the
appellant for apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.
8/2017 registered at Police-Station- Industrial Area, District-Ratlam,
for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(k), 366 and 344/34
of the IPC alongwith Sections 3(1)(w)(1) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(PA) Act, 1989.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to
surrender before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37228/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 36309/2018x
(Pinky @ Pratibha Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 26/09/2018
Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by which
applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.
198/2018 registered at Police-Station-Udainagar District-Dewas, for
the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 323 and 120-B
of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.7094/2018x
(Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been
filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 126/2012, Police
Station-Tal, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Sections 406,
294 and 506 of the IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 36981/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file necessary documents.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37266/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Shri Rahul Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted one
weeks time to file appropriate application.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 24466/2018x
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice
be issued to respondent No.2 . Notice be made returnable within two
weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34626/2018x
( Balu Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/09/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2018, Police Station-
Suwasra, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Sections 34(2)
of the M.P. Excise Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 1 year of jail sentence
of the applicant.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37760/2018x
( Mohammad Vakil Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Raju Pandagre, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.184/2018, Police Station-Jaora,
District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Sections 302, 147, 148,149
and
294 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.37753/2018x
( Manoj Parihar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.293/2018, Police Station-Bherugarh,
District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
Sections 307, 323 and 294
of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the
injured-Reena Parihar before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6987/2018x
(Shambhu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:25/09/2018
Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6839/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant - Shambhu.

Appellant - Shambhu has been found guilty for offence under
Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under
Section 7/8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been
sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with
default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so
granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is
likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Shambhu.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6839/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Shambhu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36345/2018x
( Jatin Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2018, Police Station-Palasia,
District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 323, 294, 506 and
302/34 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the
substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to file the certified copy of the statements of the prosecution
witnesses recorded before the trial Court.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6910/2018x
(Sagar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been
filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 442/2018, Police
Station-Banganga, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections
363,
366(A), 368, 376(2)(i)(n) and 109 of the IPC alongwith Section
¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statements of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.36416/2018x
( Ramesh Nath @ Rajesh Guru Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.26/2018, Police Station-
Station Road, Ratlam District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Section 420 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.4236/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37838/2018x
(Nafisha Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 25/09/2018
Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 438, Cr.P.C.
applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.
284/2018 registered at Police-Station-Mandleshwar District-Khargone,
for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 37853/2018x
(Narendra Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 25/09/2018
Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 293/2017
registered at Police-Station-Nowgaon District-Dhar, for the offence
punishable under
Sections 307, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-Diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed after a week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.38099/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
weeks time to file some relevant documents.

Be listed after a week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 34324/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a
weeks time to comply with direction given by this Court, vide order
dated 17/09/2018.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 7192/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 7207/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 7212/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6522/2018x
Indore dated :25/09/2018
Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary on next date of hearing alongwith compliance report under Section
15(A)(3) of SC/ST(Act), failing which the concerned SHO shall remain
present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to
produce case-diary and report.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Indore dated :18/09/2018
None for the parties.

Due to call made by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates
are abstainging from Court work.

In absnece of the parteis, the case is adjourned.
List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
Praveen
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3225/2018x
(Deepak Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:31/05/2018
Shri S.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3674/2018 and
3673/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3674/2018 and 3673/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
2835/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant - Deepak.

Appellant - Deepak has been found guilty for offence under
Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so
granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is
likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Deepak.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2835/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Deepak in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3222/2018x
(Abdul Rasid @ Lula Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:31/05/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 4145/2018 and
4146/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 4145/2018 and 4146/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
2934/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula.

Appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula has been found guilty for offence
under
Section 384 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so
granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is
likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2934/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees
Sixty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.607/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after
summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2012/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted three weeks time
to file the reply of IA No. 3760/2018, an application under
Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant-
Shyaam.

List after three weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2032/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2050/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri G.S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week
commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2058/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks
time to argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2122/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks
time to argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2312/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2845/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks
time to argue on IA No. 3784/2018, an application under
Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Mohd. Shakir
@ Bhuru.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18473/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20536/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. Nos. 3847/2018
3846/2018 which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3847/2018 and 3846/2018 are
allowed.

On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 3913/2018, an
application for grant of stay by ordinary as well as by registered-AD
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.174/2016x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3692/2018
3693/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3692/2018 and 3693/2018 are
allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks
ttime to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4147/2017x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3688/2018
3689/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3688/2018 and 3689/2018 are
allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
time to file the reply of IA No. 3687/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of
appellant-Pankesh @ Pankaj.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4920/2017x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dube,
learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3719/2018
3720/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3719/2018 and 3720/2018 are
allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
time to file the reply of IA No. 3721/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of
appellant-Ayyub.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.439/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3646/2018
3647/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3646/2018 and 3647/2018 are
allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
time to file the reply of IA No. 3324/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of
appellant-Gopal.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1272/2015x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5781/2017, an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence on behalf of appellant-Anwar.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to
withdraw IA No. 5781/2017.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 5781/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3965/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dubey,
learned counsel for the applicants.

Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3701/2018
3702/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3701/2018 and 3702/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3848/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Tushar Bhedsagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3897/2018
3898/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3897/2018 and 3898/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2383/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2367/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3655/2018
3656/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3655/2018 and 3656/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2163/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3743/2018
3744/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3743/2018 and 3744/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1969/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3667/2018
3666/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3667/2018 and 3666/2018 are
allowed.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week
commencing 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1193/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3602/2018
3603/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3602/2018 and 3603/2018 are
allowed.

Report of the Probation Officer is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report
of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1458/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3598/2018
3597/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3598/2018 and 3597/2018 are
allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw
this revision petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1981/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri K.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3567/2018
3568/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3567/2018 and 3568/2018 are
allowed.

Report of the Probation Officer is not available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report
of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.2401/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri P.K. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3765/2018
3764/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3765/2018 and 3764/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 2432/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri M.I. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3672/2018
3671/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3672/2018 and 3671/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 2439/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3733/2018
3732/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3733/2018 and 3732/2018 are
allowed.

Let record of the courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1803/2018x
Indore dated :31/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3578/2018
3579/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3578/2018 and 3579/2018 are
allowed.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week
commending 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 28080/2017
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj
Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of
India.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 2211/2016
Indore dated :15/03/2018
Shri Vivek Singh and Shri Neeraj Jain, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Anurag Chandra Goel, learned counsel for the respondent.
Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4013/2018x
(Monu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/05/2018
Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3894/2018
3895/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3894/2018 and 3895/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
3893/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant - Monu.

Appellant -Monu has been found guilty for offence under Section
394 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and
to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail
sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court
till 26/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is
likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3893/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Monu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.4002/2018x
(Ritesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/05/2018
Shri Pankaj Gadwanshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3833/2018
3834/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3833/2018 and 3834/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
3832/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant - Ritesh.

Appellant -Ritesh has been found guilty for offence under Section
394/
34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail
sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court
till 24/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the
conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and
that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution
evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is
likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial
sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Ritesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3821/2018x
(Gokul Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/05/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3679/2018
3680/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3679/2018 and 3680/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
3385/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellants -Gokul and Rajendra.

Appellants -Gokul and Rajendra have been found guilty for
offence under
Sections 325/34, 323/34, 325, 326 and 326/34 of the IPC
and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months, 2 months, 2
years, 3 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,000/-,
Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively with default
stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial
Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that
the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the
custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered
infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3385/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra in the sum of Rs.60,000/-
(Rupees Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain
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 30/07/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3906/2018x
(Gopal Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/05/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3695/2018
3694/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3695/2018 and 3694/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
3473/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant - Gopal Singh.

Appellant -Gopal Singh has been found guilty for offence under
Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail
sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court.
It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction
without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material
omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence
have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to
take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3473/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Gopal Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3950/2018x
(Govardhan Kushwah Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3564/2018
3562/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing
during summer vacation respectively.

On due consideration IA Nos. 3564/2018 and 3562/2018 are
allowed.

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.
3559/2018-an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellants - Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu.

Appellants -Govardhan and Balli @ Babli have been found guilty
for offence under
Section 325/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with
default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial
Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has
recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that
the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the
custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered
infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3559/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their
regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of
the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain
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 30/07/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19709/2018x
( Darshana Kour Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 25/2018, Police Station-Singoli,
District-Neemuch, concerning offence under
Section 8/15 of the
NDPS Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19337/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Case-diary is available.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vcacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18990/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one
weeks time to file the hindi translation of the relevant documents filed
alongwith the challan.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vcacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18887/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted 3 days
time to file relevant document.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vcacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18860/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively .

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20489/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Syed Z.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively alongwith relevant papers regarding
the present applicant.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20506/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20514/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20524/2018x
( Umrao Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 184/2018, Police Station-
Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
Sections 354,
452 and 506 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20527/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Devdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 19359/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 20530/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20531/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri R.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 20552/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9445/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 7026/2018x
Indore dated :28/05/2018
Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Vacation Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1179/2007
Indore dated :05/05/2018
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment.

     (Rohit Arya)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(Rohit Arya)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 584/2017
Indore dated :06/04/2018

Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 3865/2017
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit
Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 17771/2018
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit
Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.11128/2018 (PIL)x
(
Balram vs. State of M.P. Ors.)
Indore dated :18/05/2018

Shri Pramod Mitha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.

The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for praying the follwing
reliefs:-

1. The process of organ donation should be done in accordance
with the rules and regulations.

2. Instructors and NGOs working for the organ donation should be
instructed to work with doctor's report.

3. All provisions should be followed to prvent other patients from
such negligence in future.

4. The proper justice should be given for welfare of public and no
one should face this kind of problem in the future.

The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Indore (M.P.).
He claims to be Social Worker and has no personal interest in the
subject matter of the petition.

The petitioner has submitted that on 10/4/2018, Sachin S/o
Prakashbad Gujar was admitted in Bombay Hospital, Indore due to
brain injury sustained in a road accident. In the Bombay Hospital
Doctors have not given him proper treatment and illegally contacted
Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore for organ
donation, when the family members of the Sachin refused to donate
the organs and claims that injured person is alive and they are not
interested in donating the organs of their son, then Docotrs of Bombay
Hospital got irritated and shifted the patient to M.Y. Hospital, Indore
without giving any discharge papers and proper transportation
treatment. It is further submitted that Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu
Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore again came to the M.Y. Hospital and
insisted the family members of the injured Sachin to donate the
organs saying that Sachin is brain dead; wheras according to the
Doctors, Sachin is not brain dead and he is recovering. Then the
family members of the Sachin had made a written complaint against
the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, alleging that
they are unnecessarily presurasing them for organ donation. As per
the Doctors and Experts, the desire of the family members is the final
decision, a committee has been created in all the Hospitals for
counseling of organ donation. But in the present case without
counselling for the organ donation, agents of Muskan Group created
pressure on the family members of the Sachin to donate his organs,
which shows that there is collussion between the organ donation
society and Bombay Hospital, therefore, the act of the respondents are
illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, he filed this Public Interest
Litigation (PIL).

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation on the basis of
the photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the
injured-Sachin against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani,who are
the members of the Muskan Group, Indore and on the basis of news
item published in Hindi Daily "Dainik Bhaskar", alleging that they
are saying that their son Sachin is brain dead, therefore, they are
insisted for organ donation. He also invited our attention in view of
the aforesaid publication.

It becomes necessary to consider that the news item published in
the newspaper itself is admissible in evidence ? It is well settled
proposition of law that a report in a newspaper is only heresay
evidence and no judicial notice can be taken of the facts stated in a
news item in the nature of heresay secondonary evidence, unless
proved by evidence aliunde. In this regard we are referring the the
deceision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty V.
State of Tamil nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274, where the Hon'ble apex
Court has held as under:-

" We cannot take itself judicial notice of the fact stated in
a news item being in the nature of heresay evidence unless
proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only
heresay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents
referred to in
Section 78(2)of the Evidence Act by which an
allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of
genuineneness attached under
Section 81 of the Evidence Act
to a newspaper report can not be treated as proved of the facts
reported therein.A statement of fact contained in a newspaper
is merely heresay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the
absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and
deposing to have perceived the fact reported."

In the present matter, although, the petitioner has filed the
photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the
injured-Sachin, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid complaint,
we find that there is no allegation in the complaint that they donated
the organ of the Sachin. As per the complaint there is only allegation
against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani is that they are alleging
that their son appears to be brain dead and they may be ready for
donate his organ. No legal evidence has been produced by the
petitioner to prove this allegation made against the respondents and
the views expressed by the experts published in the Hindi Daily
'Dainik Bhaskar', is only heresay evidence and no judicial notice can
be taken of the facts stated in a news item in the nature of heresay
secondonary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde.

In view of the aforesaid, We can not take any judicial notice of
the facts stated in the petition. Accordingly, this Public Litigation
Interest Peition is hereby dismissed in limine.

No order as to costs.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13882/2018
(Kumar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.276/2016, Police Station-
Sendhwa Gramin, District-Barwani, concerning offence under
Sections 458, 397 and 395 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.435/2013x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 424/2013.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.424/2013x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
time to file reply of IA No. 1348/2018, repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for
grant of bail to the appellant -Gokul.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.882/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after 6 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3326/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after 8 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3393/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3404/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
None for the parties.

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.

List after 10 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.646/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Alkesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that he will not
claim the interim maintenance in pursuant to Court order dated
14/02/2018 till the next date of hearing.

Looking to the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
respondent the case is listed for hearing on 27/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3543/2017x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file appropriate application to implead complainant as respondent No.2
in the matter.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.182/2018x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, leabrned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four
weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal
Revision into M.Cr.C. under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.572/2018x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four
weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal
Revision into M.Cr.C. under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.880/2018x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process-fee +9within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 1281/2018, an
application for stay by ordinary and registered AD mode. Notice be
made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1001/2018x
Indore dated :18/05/2018
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1493/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Veera @ Veru.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1493/2018.

Pryaer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 1493/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List on the question of admission after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 912/2015
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant-Narayan is present in person.
The applicant is suffering from paralysis and he is brought before
this Court by his family members in sick condition. He is dully identified
by his counsel and his presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3077/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant
Narayan on 02/11/2017 before the registry of this Court and for recalling
of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court on 09/04/2018.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant could
not appear before the Registry of this Court on 02/11/2017 due to paralytic
attack on the left side of his body.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application and the condition
of the applicant-Naray, IA No.3077/20188 is allowed and previous non-
appearance of applicant-Narayan before the Registry this Court on
02/11/2017 is hereby condoned and non-bailable warrant issued against
him by this Court, vide order dated 09/04/2018 is hereby recalled.

Also heard on IA NO. 21309/2017, an application under Section 205
of the Cr.P.C. for permanent exemption of applicant from marking his
appearance before the Registry of this Court, in which it is contended that
the applicant is suffering from paralytic attack on the left side of his body
and he is unable to walk and he is completely bed ridden, therefore, he is
not in a position to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
every date. Hence, the applicant seeks permanent exemption from marking
his presence before the Registry of this Court. The application is also
supported with CT-scan report and other medical papers.

Looking to the health condition of the applicant, IA No. 21309/2017
is allowed and the applicant is permanently exempted to mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court with the condition that he shall mark his
presence through his counsel on every date fixed by the Registry in that
behalf. If his counsel has failed to mark his apperance before the Registry
on the date fixed for his appearance then it shall be treated the applicant's
absent on that date and the Court will issue warrant against the applicant
for securing his presence before this Court. When the Court will direct
then the applicant shall remain present in person before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court first on 31/10/2018 and on all other
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19616/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19782/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1458/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1457/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.19635/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties list on
18/05/2018.
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3219/2018x

( Mohanlal Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with order
dated 19/04/2018 rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Indore in bail
application No. 1124/2018, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail has
been declined.

Appellants have been apprehended their arrest in connection with
Crime No. 153/2018, registered at Police-Station- Betma, District-Indore in
relation to offence punishable under
Sections 325, 294, 323 and 506/34 of
the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 .

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17794/2018x
( Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 99/2018, Police Station-Leema
Chouhan, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of
the M.P. Excise Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with
liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.12803/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file some relevant documents.

List on 18/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16287/2018x
( Azhar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 536/2016, Police Station-
Kotwali, District-Shajapur, concerning offence under
Sections 394 and
120(B) of the IPC.

After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18888/2018x
Indore dated :17/05/2018
Shri M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.577/2017 x
(Mayur Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:07/05/2018
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6980/2017-
an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence dated 20/03/2013 passed
by the Special Judge,
N.D.P.S. Act, Indore in Special S.T. No.
18/2010 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years alongwith
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has not committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in the
present crime. The appellant is in custody since 12/04/2010. He has
already been completed more than 8 years of his jail sentence and
there is no likelihood of the final hearing of the appeal in near
future. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not complied
with
Section 42 of the NDPS Act and from the statement of the
Manglesh (PW 4), it appears that Additional SP was present on the
office of Narcotics Cell but no search warrant was obtained from
him. As per the prosecution story 3.102 Kgs. of opium has been
recovered from the possession of the appellant. Investigation
Officer Prateek Rai (PW 12) accepted in para 53 of his cross-
examination that the aforesaid opium was in liquid form, then how
it can be kept in the carry bag, which clearly indicates that the
appellant has fasely been implicated in the present case. Under
these circumstances he prays for suspension of the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer by
contending that from the statement of the Investigating Officer-
Prateek Rai (PW 12), it is transpired that he has received the secret
information from the informer at about 15:30 p.m. on 12/04/2010 and
thereafter he proceeded to the spot. Although Manglesh Patil (PW 4)
has deposed that when he went to the office of Additional S.P.
Narcotic Wings Office, Indore at about 16:00 p.m. for handing over a
letter (Ex.P/9) regarding information received from the informer then
at that time the Additional S.P., Narcotics Wing Indore Shri Arun
Kumar Jain was present in the Office. However, there is no evidence
available on record to show that when the secret information recived
by the Investigating Officer, then Additional S.P. Narcotics Wing,
Indore was present in his office, therefore, it cannot be said that
despite having enough time for receving the search warrant from the
Gazetted Officer the Investigating Officer does not comply with the
provision 42 of the
NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that liquid
item can be kept very well in polythene carry bag also. Therefore,
there is no infirmity is present in the prosecution evidence regarding
the seized article. The applicant has filed this appeal after delay of
1387 days, therefore, he cannot take a plea that he is in custody for
more than 8 years and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the
present appeal. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of
the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
in the considered opinion of this Court no case for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant is made
out. Accordingly, IA No.6980/2017 is hereby dismissed.

List after ensuing summer vacation on the question of admission.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1623/2018
Indore dated :16/05/2018

Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2502/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under
Section 379 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with
default stipulation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, vide
order dated 30/05/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 370/2015. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, they have challenged the
aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions by
filing Cr.A.No. 25/2017, which was dismissed by the 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge by order dated 06/04/2018 by affirming the judgment
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur. Being aggrieved
with the aforesaid judgments applicants have preferred this Revision
Petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did
not misuse the liberty so granted to them. The trial Court as well as the
appellate Court has committed an error in not properly appreciating
the evidence. FIR was lodged by the complainant after 12 hours of the
alleged incident against unknown persons and no description of
accused persons was given. During the investigation police did not
conduct any identification parade. Under these circumstances the
DOC identification has no value. The complainant did not produce any
source and documentary evidence that he was carrying Rs.20 Lacs
cash in the bag. The independent witness of memorandum and seizure
memo did not support the prosecution story. The couts below have
also not considered the contradictions and ommissions present in the
statement of the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is further submitted that
there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the
applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short
sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present
revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by submitting
that cash of Rs. 3.0 lacs and one steel box has been seized from the
possession of applicant No. 1-Akram and cash of Rs. 2.0 lacs has
been seized from the possession of the applicant No.2-Sadik Khan,
which were kept in the red bag and the bag and steel box have been
identified by the complainant as stolen property. The applicants have
failed to explain that from where they possessed the aforesaid
amount, which clearly indicates that they have theft the aforesaid
amount from the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is also pointed out by
the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate
Court after due appreciation of the material available on record found
the charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He
further submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding
appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances he
prays for rejection of the application.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly,
IA 2502/2018 is hereby dismissed.

List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing
summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18555/2018x
(Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 50/2018, Police Station-
Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 420, 463, 467
and
471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act,
1915.

After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 18654/2018x
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary of the present case is available.
Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary of Crime No. 252/2016 registered at Police Station-Ratangarh,
District-Neemuch by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 18702/2018x
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the relevant documents.

List in the week commencing 25/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17558/2018x
(Onkar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 74/2017, Police Station-Bag,
District-Dhar, concerning offence under
Sections 392 and 120 (B) of
the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11096/2018x
(Prakash Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 157/2017, Police Station-
Petlawad, District-Jhabua, concerning offence under
Sections 326,
323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13218/2018x
(Kabu Bai Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :16/05/2018
Shri Avinash Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 354/2017, Police Station-
Machalpur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under
Sections 294, 323, 336 and 302/34 of the IPC. First application of the
applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated
23/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. 1911/2018.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statements of the remaining eye witnesses.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.584/2018x
(Amjad Shah Vs. Smt. Nilobee Ors)
Indore dated : 15/05/2018
Shri Sandeep Shukla, learnedcounsel for the applicant.
Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard.

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 19(4) of
the Family Court Act against order dated 08/11/2017 passed by the Ist
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No.
503/2016, by which the application filed by the respondents under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant is
directed to pay interim maintenance @ 4,500/- per month to the
respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents
filed an application under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. For grant of
interim maintenance, which was allowed by the trial Court, vide order
dated 18/05/2017 and directed the applicant to pay interim
maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents. He has paid
Rs. 3,500/- on 02/08/2017 and thereafter he could not pay the interim
maintenance. When the case was fixed for recording the evidence of
the applicant, on 09/10/2017, the respondent No.1/wife prays that the
applicant has not deposited the interim maintenance, therefore,
applicant's right of defence may be closed. On the prayer of the
applicant, he was granted an opportunity to deposited the interim
maintenance with the condition that if he has failed to deposit the
same, his right of defence presume to be closed. On 01/10/2017, he
could not comply the order dated 09/10/2017,therefore, his right of
defence has been closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on
03/11/2017. On this date the applicant has deposited Rs.5,000/-and
prays for restoration of his right of defence but the same was declined
by the trial Court and the final order was passed on 08/11/2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant
is ready to deposit the arrearsof the entire interim maintenance, which
is due till today, therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded
back to the trial Courtd and he be permited to cross examine the
respondents witnesses and produce his evidence.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ wife
submitted that despite an order directing the applicant to deposit the
interim maintenance, he deliberately and contumaciously flouts the
said order, therefore, the trial Court has rightly stricking the defence
of the applicant. Under these circumstances he prays for rejection of
the application.

4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused
the record.

5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that applicant had not
obeyed the order and had not deposited the arrears of the interim
maintenance. However, after stricking out his defence, he had
deposited Rs.5,000/- and prayed for an opportunity to pay the arrears
of the interim maintenance. In this situation, the proper course would
have been to direct the applicant/husband to pay the remaining portion
of the interim maintenance and on payment of such amount, he could
have been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the
respondent No.1/wife and the husband should have further been
directed that only in case he deposits the total arrears of maintenance
pendente lite he would be permitted to lead his own evidence. Striking
off evidence is a very serious matter. It renders the party defenceless.
This action is to be taken only as last resort when all other means fail.
It cannot be used as short cut divest any party of its valuable right to
cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite side and to lead evidence
in support of its case. In case where the offfending party has willfully
disobeyed the orders of the Court, the Court can strike off the defence.

6. In the present case on the date of final argument the
applicant/husband has deposited Rs.5,000/- and he prayed for time to
deposit the remaing amount of interim maintenance. There may be
cases where even though the interim maintenance has been awarded,
the husband for various reasons, beyond his control, is unable to pay
any amount to the wife. In such cases the defence cannot be struck off
merely because he has not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente
lite. But this action should only be taken after affording reasonable
opportunity to the offending party to pay all the arrears. The Court
must come to the conclusion that the offending party is willfully
disobeying the orders before taking such action.

7. Since the husband has deposited sum of Rs.8,500/-as arrears
towards maintenance pendente lite and he is ready to deposit the
arrears of the interim maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month, which is
due till today, therefore, he shall be permitted to cross-examine the
witnesses produced by the respondent No.1/wife and produce his
evidence.

8. Under these circumstnaces, the present revision petition is
allowed on the aforesaid terms. The matter is remanded back to the
Court of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore to
proceed for the stage of recording the respondent evidence. The
parties are directed to appear before the Ist Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Indore on 27/06/2018. The Registry is directed to sent
the record of the case back to the concerned Family Court so as to
reach there well before the date fixed. It is made clear if the applicant
did not comply the undertaking given by his counsel before this Court,
then he will not be permitted to cross-examine the respondents
witnesses and to produce his evidence.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.248/2018
(Ali Husain Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, dated :15/05/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397/
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code')
against the order dated 07/07/2017 passed by Special Judge
(Prevention of Atricities), Shajapur, whereby charges for offence under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 have been
framed against the applicant.

This revision petition has been filed against order dated
07/07/2017 is barred by 95 days, therefore, the applicant has filed IA
No. 378/2018, an application for condonation of delay in preesentation
of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the FIR and
the statement of the complainant did not disclose that the applicant
abused the complainant by calling in the name of her caste. The
present incident has taken place in the house, which is not come within
the public view, therefore, the provision of SC/
ST Act does not attract
in the present case. Inspite of that learned trial Court committed error
in framing the charge for the offence under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)

(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and
prayed for its rejection.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
applicant has demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, who
belongs to Scheduled Castes and abused her. The applicant also
threatened that he will kill her. In the statement of the complainant
and other witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has
come that the applicant insulted the complainant by calling in the
name of her caste.

Looking to the amendements inserted in the Atrocities Act in the
year 2016, there are sufficient grounds are available for framing the
charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the
SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant. Applicant has also failed
to assign the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the
present revision petition, therefore, I do not find any merit in the
present petition. Accordingly, IA No. 378/2018 and present revision
petition both are dismissed.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.47/2018
(Sourabh Maru Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, dated :15/05/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397/
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code')
against the order dated 09/11/2017 passed by Sessions Judge,
Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015, whereby the order dated
09/04/2015 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Agar (Malwa) in
Case No. 11/B-121/2013-14 for convicting the applicant for the
offence punishable under
Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)
(C)/52 of the Prevention from
Food Adulteration Act, 2011 has been
affirmed and the applicant is directed to deposit penalty amount of
Rs.60,000/-.

According to the prosecugtion story, on 11/03/2014, at about
4:00 p.m., complainant-K.L. Kumbhakar reached to the shop of
applicant for inspection and he purchased the Mawa Katli as a sample
(which was covered by silver verk) in his shop. The sample was sent
for analysis to State Public Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine
Administration, Bhopal and as per the analysis report received from
Bhopal, silver verk used by the applicant in preparing Mawa Katli was
found adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm).

After getting permission, the complainant filed the complaint
against the applicant before the Additional District Magistrate, Agar
(Malwa), whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence
punishable under
Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52
of the Prevention from
Food Adulteration Act, 2011, vide order dated
09/04/2015. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid, the applicant has
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015 before the Sessions Judge,
Shajapur and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment by
affirming the order of conviction, however, the penalty amount has
been reduced from Rs.1.0 Lacs to Rs.60,000/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the seized silver verk was harmful and unfit for
human consumption. The trial Court also not considered the fact that
applicant has not made the silver verk in his own factory. The
appellate Court has committed error in imposing capital penalty
amount of Rs.60,000/- ignoring the facts that the applicant is a small
shopkeeper and he is first offender and facing the trial since 2014.
Inspite of that the courts' below have not extended the benefit of
probation to the applicant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel
for the applicant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and
prayed for its rejection.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

From the perusal of the judgments passed by the courts' below, it
appears that the applicant was selling Mawa Katli in his sweet mart
and one sample of the same was taken and sent to the State Public
Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine Administration, Bhopal and
as per the analysis report it was found that the silver verk over Mawa
Katl was adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm). This fact is
proved by the prosecution that the silver verk was used by the
applicant in preparation of Mawa Katli is found adulterated, hence, the
applicant must be ensured that the silver verk used in the sweet should
be according to the food safety rules. Therefore, he cannot take a plea
that he is not maker of the silver verk, thus he should not be blamed
for adulterating the silver verk.

The silver verk used for prepration of Mawa Katli by the
applicant was found adulterated and it certainly harmful for human
being, therefore, the courts below have not committed any error in
convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under
Sections 3(z)

(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52 of the Prevention from Food
Adulteration Act, 2011 and imposing penalty upon him, which has
already been reduced by the appellate Court from Rs.1.0 Lac to
Rs.60,000/-.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of
this Court no interference is warranted. Accordingly, this revision
petition is dismissed summarily.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 27256/2017
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10784/2017
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.9337/2018

(Dr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. Ors.)
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents /State.

Heard finally with consent.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order
dated 13/04/2018, whereby exercising the power under Rule 20(3) of
Pre-Conception Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 ( for short the Act), the registration of petitioner
has been suspended.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in terms of sub-section
(1) of
Section 20 of the Act, a show cause notice is required to be given
and under sub-section (2) of
Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate
authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing was required to
pass the order. She submits that for invoking the provisions of sub-
section (3) of
Section 20, the appropriate authority was required to
disclose the urgency and also record the reason for the same, however,
this provision has not been complied with in the present case by
respondent No.2 and looking to the fact that default on the part of the
petitioner was only minor, rules of natural justice ought to have been
followed in the matter. She further submits that there was no urgency to
invoke sub-section (3) of
Section 20 of Act.

Counsel for respondent/State has fairly stated before this Court
that there is no objection in giving an opportunity of hearing and
passing a fresh order in accordance with Act.

Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the writ
petition at this stage is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order
dated 13/04/2018 with liberty to respondents to pass appropriate order
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance
with the Act.

Certified copy wtihin 3 days.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List on 17/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.15313/2018x
(Guman Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.296/20176, Police Station-
Suasara, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under
Section 379 of
the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
statements of the substantial prosecution witnesses.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14413/2018x
(Hoshiyar Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.543/2016, Police Station-
Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) and 201/34 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16287/2018x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is
adjourned.

List on 17/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16692/2018x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is
adjourned.

List on 17/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 332/2014x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the reply of IA No.
23418/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant the case is
adjourned.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.205/2015x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted four
week's time to file the reply of IA No. 2307/2018, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaing jail sentnece and
for grant of bail to the appellant-Devendra Singh.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 606/2015x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondentd/UOI.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant the case if
adjourned.

List after four weeks for consideration of IA No. 7299/2017,
repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant-Kojaram.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 364/2016x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has already filed the
reply of IA No. 7934/2017, first application under
Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to
the appellant-Prashant @ Nannu.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Govt.
Advocate has not supplied the copy of reply to him.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to supply the copy of reply
of IA No. 7934/2017 to the learned counsel for the appellant during the
course of the day.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 426/2016x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after three weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.440/2016x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 2214/2018, 1 st
application filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Shankar @ Raju.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 2214/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 2214/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.672/2016x
Indore dated :15/05/2018
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to argue on IA No. 1576/2018, second application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence
and for grant of baial to the appellant-Shahrukh.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 709/2012x
Indore dated :11/05/2018
Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 2604/2018, repeat (second) application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail
sentence awarded to the applicant and for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Ratlam in Criminal
Case No.1672/2010, vide order dated 06/03/2012 for the offence
under
Section 304(A)of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation. He has
challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of
Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 119/2012, which was partly allowed by
the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 26/06/2012. The
conviction for the offence under
Section 304(A) of the IPC was
affirmed, however, the sentence was reduced from 1 years RI to 6
months R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment applicant
has preferred this Revision Petition before this Court.

From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant has
moved an application under Section397(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence awarded by the appellate Court and the same
was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, and the
applicant was released on bail subject to condition that he shall mark
his presence before this registry of this Court on every date fixed by
the Office in this regard. However, on 06/01/2016, applicant failed to
appear before this Court. Thereafter, on the request of his counsel the
case was fixed to keep him present before this Court on 12/03/2018
but he did not mark his presence on the said date, therefore, vide order
dated 12/03/2018, warrant of arrest was issued against him and in
pursuant to that the applicant was arrested by the Police and produced
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam on 12/04/2018
and since then he is in custody.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after granting
bail by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, the applicant
applicant did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Due to illness
and lost of date slip, he could not appear before this Court on
06/01/2016. He also assured that in future the applicant will be
regularly mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on each
and every date fixed by the Office in this behalf. Under these
circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by
contending that after suspension of jail Sentence by this Court, vide
order dated 12/07/2012, the applicant was remained absent on
29/09/2014 and he was appeared on 22/07/2015 and moved an
application for condonation of absence, which was allowed by this
Court and thereafter, on 06/01/2016 the applicant made default in
apperance before this Court, therefore, it is clear that the applicant is
habitual defaulter and he has misused the liberty earlier granted to
him. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of the
application.

After considering the the arguments advance by the learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the applicant is
habitual defaulter in marking his presence before this Court. He
failed to mark his presence on the date fixed by this Court without
assigning any sufficient reason, therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court no case for grant of suspension of remaining
jail sentence and for grant of bail is made out to the applicant.
Accordingly, IA No. 2604/2018 is hereby dismissed.

List the revision for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1320/2018
Indore dated :10/05/2018

Shri A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1998/2018, an
application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under
Sections 323,324, 325/34 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6
months,1 years,1 years and 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for
each offence respectively with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants
were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so
granted to them. It is further submitted that there are fair chances of
success of this revision petition and the applicants cannot be kept in
custody in the cases, where the short sentence has been awarded by
the Courts below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by them
may turn infructuous. Applicants have already deposited the fine
amount before the trial Court. Under these circumstances he prays for
suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail
to the applicants.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor
that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of
the material evidence available on record found the charges proved
against the applicants for the aforesaid offences.

From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicants were
not present before the trial Court on the date of pronouncement of
judgment and the judgment was passed in their absence. After passing
the judgment by the trial Court, they did not surrendered before the
trial Court so that the jail sentence awarded to them to be executed.
They have surrendered before the trial Court after lapse of eight and
half months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court,
which clearly indicates that they have misused the liberty so granted to
them.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no
sufficient ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence
awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, IA
1998/2018 is hereby dismissed.

List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing
summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9525/2017
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Smt. Sangita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been
filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 12/4/2017 passed by
the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No.
798/2016,whereby order dated 12/08/2016 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 25706/2014 for
allowing the application under
Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
respondent has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a
private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore
regarding commission of offence punishable under
Section 138 of the
NI Act. During pendency of the case respondent has filed an
application under
Section 91 of the Cr.P.C alleging that the applicant
is a money lender and he is doing money lending business without
having any license. Earlier also he has filed 10 cases under
Section138 of the NI Act against another persons, therefore, the
applicant be directed to furnish the certified copy of the complaint
cases mentioned in Serial Nos. 4 to 10 in the application. Said
application was allowed by the trial Court.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision petition has
been filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and
the same was dismissed, vide order dated 12/04/2017 by the
Additional Seesions Judge on the ground that the revision petition
has been filed against the interlocutory application, therefore, in the
light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of
Setu Raman Vs. Rajamanikkam, 2009(5) SCC 153, this revision is
not tenable. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this
court in present application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of
M.P. Money Lenders Act is not applicable in the cases filed under
Section 138 of the NI Act, therefore, the question that applicant is
having valid license or not for doing money lending business in no
relevant in the present matter . Therefore, the trial Court has
committed error in directing him to filed certified copies of the
previous complaints filed by him against another persons under
NI
Act.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial
Court has not committed any error in allowing the application filed
under
Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and the impugned order does not
suffer from any perversity, therefore, it may not be interfered. It is
also alleged that the applicant will regularly advance loan amount to
the needy persons without holding any license. From the definition of
the Section 11(H)of the Money Lenders Act,1934 it is evident that the
present case is not maintainable because the applicant is carrying a
money lending business without having valid license and as a security
of loan amount, he obtains the cheques of the advanced amount from
the borrowers.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the case, it
appropriate to first deal with the contentions of the learned counsel
for the applicant. First attack of the learned counsel for the applicant
is on the applicability of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 in the
cases filed under
Section 138 of the NI Act. It may be appropriate to
refer the provisions of M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934.

" Section 11-H of the said act lays down that no money lending
suit for the recovery of loan advanced by the money lender was
proceeded in the civil court, until the court is satisfied that he holds
the valid registration certificate or he is not required to have
registration certified by reasons of the fact that he does not carry out a
business of money lending ( in any area of M.P.)"

7. In the present case it is alleged by the respondent that the
applicant is a money lender, who is doing the aforesaid business
without having any license. Although the complainant denied the
aforesaid allegation but he has not claimed that he is owned any
license for doing money lending business. From the provision 11(H)
of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 , it is clear that no suit for the
recovery of loan advanced by money lender will proceed in a civil
Court if the money lender had a valid registration certificate meaning
thereby any person, who is involved in money lending business
cannot recovered the loan amount through Court. 8. As per the
explanation of the
Negotiable Instruments Act " Debt or other liability
means a legal enforceable debt or other liability". So a loan advanced
by a money lender, who is doing a business of money lending without
license is not a debt or other liability and provision of 138 of the
NI
Act will not apply to such transactions in the light of provision under
Section 11(H) of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934.

8. In the light of the above discussion this court come to the
conclusion that the trial Court has committed any legal error in
directing the applicant to file certified copies of the complaint as
mentioned at serial Nos. 4 to10 in the application filed under
Section
91 of the Cr.P.C. so that the respondent can able to prove that the
applicant is doing money lending business and hence the cheques
issued by respondent in favour of the applicant is not for the debt or
liability or legal enforcible liability.

9.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9994/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 ( for brevity 'the Code') for assailing the order dated
07/04/2017 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in
Criminal Revision No. 872/2016, whereby order dated 29/08/2016
passed in Criminal Case No. 0/2015 by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Indore for rejection of the private complaint has been
affirmed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant
has filed a criminal complaint under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore alleging that on
14/12/2014, at about 8 p.m., respondents teased and abused his wife.
When he prevented them, then they broke his foot. He reported the
incident to the Police, due to this enmity on 05/07/2015 and
afterwards, the respondents sent a message through whats-app with
intend to insult him, in which they threatened that they will kill him
and kidnapped his wife. They also used filthy languages in the
message, which was defamatory to him.

3. The complainant was presented on 29/01/2015 before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore and thereafter the
statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses called by the
complainant were recorded to enable the concerned Magistrate to
taking the cognizance on the complaint. After recording the statement
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore vide order dated
29/08/2016 rejected the complaint under
Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by
contending that prima-facie no offence under
Sections 294, 500 and
506 are made out against the respondents.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore revision application was
filed before the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore which was
registered as Cr.R. No. 872/2016 and final order was passed
on07/04/2017, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed on
the ground that the applicant has failed to establish prima facie case
against the respondents. This order is subject matter of challenge
before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the
statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie sufficient
grounds are made out against the respondents for prosecuting them,
however, the trial Court fails to consider the material available on
record and committed error of law and fact in rejecting the private
complaint filed by the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by
contending that impugned judgments are not suffered from any
illegality and perversity, therefore, impugned judgments may not be
interfered.

7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties to the case and
perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that applicant- Abbas Ali
deposed in his statement recorded under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
that the respondent No.6- Burhani Saifi sent a message on whats- app
through his mobile phone alleging that he is drunker and he teased
the girls and he also collected extortion money, due to this message
his image is damaged in society. But neither he mentioned his mobile
number nor the mobile number from which he received this message.
It is also pertinent to note that that aforesaid allegations were not
mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant, therefore,
aforesaid statements of the applicant falls in the category of
omissions, hence, it cannot be accepted.

9. Although Mohan Lal (CW2) and Bano Bai (CW 3) have also
supported the version of the complainant, however, Mohan Lal (CW

3) accepted that he has not received any message on his whats-app
and he knew about the aforesaid message on the information given by
the applicant. Inspite of that in his view the complainant is a good
person. The statement of the Mohan Lal (CW 3) clearly indicates that
neither he had seen nor received any message,which is alleged to send
by the respondent No.6 on whats-app of the complainant and no
adverse facts come to his mind regarding the conduct of the
complainant.

10. Bano Bai (CW 3), although deposed in her statement that she
received whats-app message on her mobile in which it was alleged
that the applicant consumed the liquor and teased the girls. But she
did not say in her statement that the aforesaid whats-app message was
sent by any of the respondents.

11. After going through the record and material available on record,
I do not find any illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts
below. The Courts' below have come to the conclusion after due
appreciation of the material and evidence available on record and
dismissed the private complaint filed by the applicant. The appellate
Court also after due appreciation of the material available on record
held that there is nothing on record to invoke the revisional
jurisdiction for interference in the impugned order. In the considered
opinion of this Court, judgments passed by the both the courts' below
is proper and as per the material available on record.

12. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgments
passed by the courts' below. Accordingly, this application filed under
Section of the Code is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3671/2017x
(Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 11/05/2018
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Present revision has been preferred by the applicant being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/10/2017 passed by 3rd Addtional
Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.A. No. 973/2016, whereby confirmed
the judgment dated 02/11/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Depalpur, whereby convicted the applicant under
Section 324
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one years with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State raised an objection
about maintainability of this revision stating that after his conviction,
the applicant has not surrendered to custody as also not filed any
declaration to the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court
and he is in custody and prays for dismissal of this reviosion as not
maintainable.

From the perusal of the records, it reveals that at the time of
conviction and sentence, the applicant was not present before the
Appellate Court and the judgment was pronounced in his absence.
After his conviction, he has not surrendered to custody and instead of
that, he filed the present revision without incorporating declaration to
the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court and he is in
custody. Thus, the present revision filed by the applicant without his
surrender before the court below is not maintainable.

In the case of Dilip Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P.,
reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534, this Court while dealing with the
maintainability of the revision petition, has held that a Criminal
Revision against conviction is tenable only when it contains a
declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has
surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence
has been suspended by the Court below.

In viw of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the objection
raised by learned counsel for the respondent on the point of
maintainability is accepted and the present revision petition is hereby
dismissed as not maintainable.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9126/2018x
(
State of M.P. vs. Babu Singh Ors.)
Indore dated :11/05/2018

Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

Heard.

ORDER

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal

against judgment dated 30/11/2017 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge,

Ratlam, in S.T. No. 2206/2010, whereby the respondents-Babusingh, Veer Singh

and Nagu Singh have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471

and 474 of the IPC.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal

of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondents were tried for the offence

punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the IPC.

3. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it appears although some Bhu

Adhikar and Rin Pustika were recovered from the possession of the respondents,

however, they were found to be correct and true. No report was lodged by anybody

regarding stolen of these Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika. Investigation Officer-S.S.

Chouhan (PW 14) in para 34 of his cross-examination admitted that he has not

found that any accused persons furnish bail papers on the basis of these Bhu Rin

Pustika, which were recovered from their possession. During the investigation

police has not made any attempt to verify the signatures of the persons, who have

signed those bail papers, who were suspected to be forged. There are material
contradictions were also found in the statement of the witnesses. According to us,

the trial Court did not erred in acquitting the respondents.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out that how and in what manner

the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or

plausible. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgement.

5. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for warranting admission.

Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed

summarily.

      (P.K. Jaiswal)                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7696/2018x

(State of M.P. vs. Vijay @ Akhatya)
Indore dated :11/05/2018

Shri Sudarshan Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

Heard.

ORDER

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal

against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge,

Khargone (East Nimar) in S.T. No. 800536/2016, whereby the respondent-Vijay @

Akhatya has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II)

of the IPC.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal

of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondent was tried for the offence

punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II) of the IPC.

3. Prosecutrix is a major girl. On going through her testimony, we find that

the sexual act done by the respondent with her consent and she travelled with the

respondent by bus and train for so many places. They lived together for a period

of 1 month and during this period she has not raised any alarm against the conduct

of the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that if at all

act of rape has been committed from the prosecutrix then it might be consent with

the applicant as she is a major girl of 19 years. Similarly the trial Court has also

come to the conclusion that there is no sign of injury has been found on the body

of the prosecturix. As per the statement of the Dr. Sarika Patel (PW 3), who
examined the prosecutrix and on which basis this cannot be inferred that any

forcible intercourse has been committed on the prosecutrix.

4. Looking to the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion findings

recorded by the trial Court does not appears to be perverse or illegal, which can be

interfered by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that if the trial Court

after due appreciation of the material available on record came to the conclusion of

acquittal and the findings is not perverse then normally it should not be interfered

by the appellate Court.

5. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against

impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9035/2018 x
( Ajay Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

ORDER
This application under
Section 482/437(6) of the
Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 24/01/2018 passed by
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Criminal Revison
No. 9/2018, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has dismissed the Criminal Revision of the applicant and
confirmed the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 516/2017 dated 22/12/2017.

The facts giving rise to this application are that the applicants
were facing trial before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Alirajpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
Excise Act in Criminal Case No. 516/2017. After reading over the
particulars of the offfence to the applicant, the matter was first placed
for recording of prosecution evidence on 17/05/2017, however, after
lapse of 60 days no evidence could be recorded, therefore, the
application was filed by the applicants under
Section 437(6) of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on the ground that after lapse of period, as
prescribed under
Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. the present case which
is triable by the Magistrate could not be concluded.

Leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on
the ground that 8 prosecution witnesses has already been examined
and the trial is in progress, therefore, it is not proper to release the
applicants on bail. Being aggrieved by this order the applicants have
filed criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the 2 nd Addtional
Sessions Judge, Alirajpur,vider order dated 24/01/2018 passed in
Cr.R. No. 9/2018 by contending that the reasons recorded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate were just and proper. Thus, no interference is
called for.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicants have
preferred this application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the
ground that both the Courts below did not consider the facts and law
properly and they wrongly interpreted the provision 437(6) of the
Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the
judgement passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2001(1) JLJ 404, in which it has been held that the provision of
437(6) of the
Cr.P.C. are mandatory and the reasons given by the
Courts below that it is doubtful that they would be attending the Court
on each and every date fixed by the Magistrate were not judicious.
The co-ordinate Bench observed as below:-

"3.......................... These reasoning indicating the
apprehension of the learned Courts below, by no strech of
imagination, could be termed as judicious, and therefore,
they are not of such a nature as to thwart and wash off the
manadatory character of the provisions of
Section 437(6)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the considered
view that the statutory right given to the accused by the
above provisions cannot be taken away. Since the
applicant had all through remained in custody during the
said period of more than sixty days from the first date
fixed for recording the evidence, he would be deemed to
have been clothed with the right to be released on bail.
The rejection of his application under
Section 437(6) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial
Magistrate and later the dismissal of his revision by the
learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, was
nothing but the abuse of the process of Court and given
rise to the miscarriage of justice.".

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

From the perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court, it appears
that on 17/5/2017, the particulars of the offence were read over to the
applicantd and the case was fixed for recording of the evidence for
the first time on 17/05/2017. Till 15/02/2018,only 12 witnesses have
been examined and meanwhile absconded accused Ugrasen has been
arrested by the Police and now the case is fixed for filing of
supplementary charge-sheet against him. Therefore, it is clear that
there is no possibility of the early conclusion of the trial. The
applicant is in custody for more than 1 years. Although the provision
of
Section 437(6) are not mandatory but directory, however, it is
evident from the record that the prosecution could not be concluded
his witnesses within 60 days from the first date of recording of
evidence and there is no likelihood of final disposal of the case in near
future,therefore, in the considered view of this Court that statutory
right given to the accused by provision 437 (6) of the
Cr.P.C. cannot
be taken away. Consequently, this application is allowed and the
orders passed by the Courts' below are hereby set aside. The
applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only)each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the
trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present
before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the
conditions enumerated under
Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however,
in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17167/2018
(Raju @ Shahjad Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :11/05/2018
Shri L.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.260/2017, Police Station-
Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 307, 323, 294
and
506/34 of the IPC.

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10771/2018
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit
Saboo, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24/03/2018 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 64/2017 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge,
Neemuch, whereby order dated 26/08/2017 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Neemuch in Criminal Complaint Case No.
495/2015 has been affirmed, by which the application filed by the
applicants under
Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 is an
occupier of the factory Adani Willmar Limited and engaged inter alia
in the operation relation to the manufacture of oil, De-oiled cake etc.
In its factory situated at village Bhatkheda, District-Neemuch;
whereas the applicant No.2 is a Factory Manager of the aforesaid
factory. On 09/4/2015, 10/04/2015 and 11/04/2015 Factory
Manager inspected the factory premises and informed that the 5
workers were died due to the violation of
Section 7-A and 36 of the
Act read with Rule 73 and
Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of
Rule 107 of the M.P. Factories Rules punishable under
Section 92 of
the said Act. On 11/05/2015 the respondent filed the complaint before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the applicants therein
alleging violation of
Section 7-A and 36 of the Act read with Rule 73
and
Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of Rule 107 of the M.P.
Factories Rules punishable under
Section 92 of the said Act. On that
basis the Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the applicant
and issued summons against them on 11/05/2015. On 20/06/2017, the
applicants filed an application under
Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for
conversion of the case from summons trial into warrant trial on the
premises that the applicant/accused has to prove volumonious record
and witnesses, and this is not possible in summon's case. The said
application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Neemuch on the ground that delay may occur due to conversion of
summons trial case into warrant trial case. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order the revision petition was filed before the Sessions
Court and this was also dismissed on the ground that prayer made by
the applicants can be considered after the trial is commenced and the
case is not reached to the stage of commencement of trial, therefore,
the application filed by the applicants is premature.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has draw the attention of this
Court in the case of
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India, 1996 (6) SCC 775, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court while dealing
with the issued has held that in cases of trials of summons cases by
magistrates the trial would be considered to have commenced when the
accused to appear or brought before the magistrate are asked under
Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. He
also placed reliance in the case of
Raj Kishosre Prasad v. State of
Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 495; wherein it was held that since the person is
present before the Court and Court hears the parties on framing of
charges, at this stage trial is said to have commenced.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the approach
adopted by the revisional Court is hypothetical and he has failed to
consider that the trial of summon case is commenced when the accused
appear or brought before the Magistrate and he asked that whether he
plead guilty or have any defence to make. The trial Court has wrongly
concluded that the trial is not yet commenced. Therefore, he prays that
the case be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of their
application filed under
Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for conversion of
summons trial into warrant trial.

5. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the
record.

6. Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:

" 259. Power of Court to convert summons-cases
into warrant cases. When in the course of the trial of a
summons-case relating to an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears
to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence
should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the
trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re-
hear the case in the manner provided by this Code for the
trial of warrant-cases and the may recall any witnesses
who may have been examined."

7. On reading of Section 259 of the Cr.P.C., I am of the view that this
exercise of jurisdiction under Section of the 259
Cr.P.C. is nopt available
to the Magistrate at the stage earlier to the commencement of trial. The
very opening words of the section " when in the course of the trial of a
summons case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a
term exceeding six months, it appears to the magistrate that in the
interest of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the
procedure for the trial of warrant cases, such magistrate may proceed to
rehear the case in the manner provided by this code for the trial of
warrant cases and may recally any witness who may have been
examined."

8. In the present case the words " rehear and rehear the case"
indicates that the Magistrate should commenced the proceedings from
the start or de novo meaning thereby that after the trial has begun the
Magistrate feels that in the interest of justice the offence is tried in
accordance with procedure for trial of warrant cases then he may be
converted summon trial into trial of warrant cases. The stage of trial has
not come to the stage, where the Magistrate can resort the provision of
this Section. Although, the trial of summon cases is commenced when
the accused or brought before the Magistrate and he asked under
Section
251 of the Cr.P.C. that whether he plead guilty or have any defence to
make. But in the present case the Magistrate has not read over the
particular of offence.

9. Having carefully examined the aforesaid provision and
consideration of material brought on record, in the considered opinion of
this Court that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not
committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicants
under
Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. and the intereference under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Consequently, this petition is hereby
dismissed.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

None for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
The applicant has filed this petition under
Section 407 red with
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for transferring the Criminal Case No.
2104/2011 (State of M.P. Through police-station-Ujjain Vs. Sandeep and
others) pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ujjain to Competent court of C.J.M. or J.M.F.C. Court, Gwalior.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of
complaint made by the applicant at Police-Station Kotwali, District-
Ujjain, an FIR bearing Crime No. 29/2011 under
Section 498(A) of the
IPC read with
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been
registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is pending before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. The respondent No.3
is a practioning lawyer at Ujjain and the family members of respondent
No.2 threatened her when she went to Ujjain for evidence, therefore, the
applicant is having apprehension in her mind that in case she appeared
at Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
The applicant is presently residing at Gwalior, which is about 500 Kms.
away from Ujjain. She is young lady having a female child and there is
no male member to escort her from Gwalior to Ujjain on the date of
hearing. So on account of convenience of the parties, the matter, which
is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain be
transferred to competent court of C.J.M. Or J.M.F.C. Gwalior.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
record.

5. From the perusal of record it is apparent that the applicant is
residing at Gwalior and on the basis of complaint made by her, a
criminal case is registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. It is
alleged that respondent No.3 is a practising lawyer at Ujjain and the
applicant is having apprehension in her mind that when she will appear
in Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her by
respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Under these circumstances the prayer made by
the applicant looking bonafide. Although the applicant is prayed for
transfer of case from Ujjain to Gwalior but it does not find just and
proper because respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are old persons and the distance
from Ujjain to Gwalior is 500 Kms and if the case is transferred from
Ujjain to Gwalior, it will create difficulty for them to attend the Court at
Gwalior.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the interest of justice would be served in
transferring the case from Ujjain to Dewas. Accordingly, this petition is
allowed and the Criminal Case No. 2104/2011 be transferred from the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain to the Court of C.J.M.
Dewas.

7. With the aforesaid M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017 stands disposed of.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the concrned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ujjain and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for information and
compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 18205/2018
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for relexation of the condition as imposed by this Court, vide
order dated 10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017.

2. Following condition was imposed by this Court while granting the
bail to the applicant:-

"It is directed that on being so released on bail he
would mark his presence before the concerning police-
station on first Sunday of each month at 11:00 a.m."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation
is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The trial is pending before the
Sessions court and the charges have been framed. Now the case is fixed
for recording of evidence. Applicant is regularly marking his presence
before the trial Court, therefore, there is no need for marking his
presence before the concerning police-station. Applicant has already
complied with all directions imposed by this Court. Under these
circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for relaxation
with the aforesaid condition imposed by this Court, vide order dated
10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017.

4. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The
conditions as stated above in para 2 stands deleted.

5. Copy of this order be kept in the record of M.Cr.C. No.
5235/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1174/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
Revision is admitted for final hearing.
List for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1178/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1180/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four
weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1181/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.R. 3574/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 3574/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Mohan Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of fresh process fee within a week, let notice be
issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 23736/2017, an
application for condonation of delay by registered AD and ordinary
mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1188/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Mahesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Let record of the courts below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of
admission.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1195/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of
entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1196/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of
entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1197/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to submit
a report as to whether the confiscation proceedings with regard to
vehicle Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-K-9430 has been
completed or not ?

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1205/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter on the question of admission.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1206/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 2946/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 2946/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the courts below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of
admission.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1209/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Ravindra Bhawsar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for listing the matter
alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017.

Prayer is allowed.

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017
for analogous hearing in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1218/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Let record of the courts below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of
admission.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1227/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition
has become rendered infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been
rendered infructuous.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1244/2017x
Indore dated :10/05/2018
Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Let record of the courts below be requisitioned.
On payment of process fee within a week, let notice be issued to
respondent by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode. Notice be
made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4146/2018x
(Basanti Verma Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 09/05/2018
Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to direct the trial Court to
decide the S.T. No. 1308/2009 within a period of 60 days.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of
FIR lodged by the applicant Basanti Verma regarding murder of her
son Vikas @ Gultu an offence was registered against the accused
persons namely Raju Malviya, Rajendra Singh Solanki, Mahendra
Solanki, Shankar Yadav, Raju Yadav other persons under
Section
302 /
149 of the IPC bearing Crime No.745/2009 at Police-Station-
Chandan Nagar, District-Indore. After completion of investigation
charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the Court of
12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore as S.T. No. 1308/2009.

3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that
trial is pending since 2009 and applicant has filed an application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court to direct the trial Court to
expedite the trial and this Court vide orders dated 11/02/2011 and
13/07/2012, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as
possible. Inspite of aforesaid directions the trial is still pending. The
case is listed for recording the statement of defence witnesses since
2016 and sufficient opportunities have been given to the accused
persons for adducing their defence evidence. But neither the defence
witnesses has been produced nor summons or warrant has been served
on the witnesses. Hence, the trial Court be directed to decide the
matter as early as possible preferably within a period of 60 days.

2. After consideing the statement made by the learned counsel for
the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
this petition is allowed. As the trial is pending for more than 5 years,
therefore, the trial Court is expected to decide this case on priority
basis. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
early as possible preferably within 4 months from the receipt of
certified copy of this record. If the trial is not concluded within the
aforesaid period, then the trial Court shall seek extension of time by
stating the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 17538/2018x
Indore dated :09/05/2018
Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the certified copy of proceedings of the trial Court to demonstrate
the current status of the trial.

List in the next week
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17580/2018x
(Dashrath @ Bapu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :09/05/2018
Shri Vinod Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.473/2017, Police Station-Sardarpur,
District-Dhar, concerning offence under
Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC.

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1863/2018 x
(Ajay Kumar Vs. Poonamchand)
Indore dated : 08/05/2018
Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of notice issued against the respondent is
awaited.

The applicant has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Mandsaur for the offence under
Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo 6
months R.I. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,38,204/- under
Section
357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction the applicant has preferred appeal before the Sessions
Court, Mandsaur, in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur
affirmed the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
however, sentence has been reduced from 6 months R.I. to 1 months
R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid applicant has preferred this
revision petition under
Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No.2827/2018,
an application under
Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Ajay Kumar.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was issued by the
applicant in furtherance to any liability and inspite of that the courts
below have convicted the applicant. Under these circumstnaces he
prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
applicant-Ajay Kumar.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
record.

The question arises for consideration before this Court is whether
this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicant has not
surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In
other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would
be tenable.

It is true that there is no requirement under the Cr.P.C. which
makes it necessary for the accused to surrender after conviction before
filing Criminal Revision, however, as per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the
M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to
surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules
48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in
custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the
sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu
Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with
the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision
against conviction is tenable only when applicant has given
declaration to the effect that the appliant is in custody or has
surrendered after the conviction.

In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this IA
No.2827/2018 and criminal revision are dismissed as not maintainable
.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Anand Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/SPE.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(P.K. Jaiswal)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(P.K. Jaiswal)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.627/2018x
Indore, dated :08/05/2018

Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the
order dated 04/12/2015 passed by Special Judge under
NDPS Act,
Manasa District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 6/20102, whereby
charges for offence under
Sections 8/15(C) read with Section 8/29 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Jakir.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 893/2018, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 701 days in preferring this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in
jail and no male member of his family met the applicant in jail, who
take intiative on behalf of the applicant, hence the applicant could not
file this revision filed in prescribed time period.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that till now 6
prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and
the trial is in advance stage. There is no sufficient grounds are
mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, hence, he
prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the fact that the trial is in advance stage and 6
prosecution witnesses have already been examined, therefore, at this
stage no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order
coupled with the fact that the applicant has failed to make out
sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 701 days in
preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 893/2018 is dismissed.
Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby dismissed as time
barred.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 525/2011x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 1786/2018, an application issuance of production
warrant against appellant No.2-Amarjeet.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellant No.2-Amarjeet is detained in another case in District-Jail,
Indore, hence, production warrant be issued against him for securing his
presence befor this Court.

On due consideration IA No. 1786/2018 is allowed.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Amarjeet
for securing his presence before this Court on 22/06/2018.

List on 22/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 350/2012x
Indore dated : 08/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is present in person and he has
been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3153/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant No.1
on 08/01/2018 before the registry of this Court.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu on
08/01/2018 before this Court.

Accordingly, IA No.3153/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu before the Registry this Court on
08/01/2018 is hereby condoned.

Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is directed to appear before the
Office of this Court on 26/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 567/2012x
Indore dated :08/05/2018

Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Appellant-Munnalal @ Amar Singh is not present today.
Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Munnalal @
Amarsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/07/2018.

List on 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 195/2013x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per the report recieved from Sessions Judge, Shajapur, the
appellant-Bhagwan Singh has been convicted for the offence under
Section 392 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant has already been suffered the jail
sentence awarded by the trial Court and he was also deposited the fine
amount and he is released from the Jail on 01/11/2017 after completion
of the sentence.

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Acccordingly this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 331/2013x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20958/2017, an
application for correction in the name as per Adhar Card.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to
withdraw IA No. 20958/2017.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 20958/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1647/2013x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Appellant-Harish Pushpad is not present today.
Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Harish
Pushpad for securing his presence before this Court on 09/07/2018.

List on 09/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 8979/2013x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Today the case is listed for in default of payment of P.F.
On earlier occassion also the Court has already been granted time
to the appellant to pay the process fee. But inspite of that the applicant
has not complied with the order. Today also none appeared on behalf of
the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no longer interested
in prosecuting this petition.

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for non-compliance of Court order and
for want of prosecution.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 591/2014x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No1. - Asharam before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 02/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1994/2014x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 2133/2017, an application for presence of the
appellant by production warrant.

It is stated in the application that the appellant -Keshuram could
not appear before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2016 because he
has been arrested by the Police in connection with Crime No. 87/2011
registered at Police-Station-Badwah, District-Khargone and now he is in
Central Jail, Indore since 27/09/2016.

On due consideration IA No. 2133/2017 is allowed.
Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Keshuram for
securing his presence before this Court on 27/06/2018.

List on 27/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 849/2015x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Ms. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per Office report appellant-Ganesh has failed to mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2017.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ganesh for
securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018.

List on 25/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1161/2015x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Bailable warrant issued against the appellant No.2-Dayaram
received unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail,
Rajgarh in another case.

Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Dayaram
for securing his presence before this Court on 28/06/2018.

List on 28/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.05/2016x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondent.
Appellant/State has filed this appeal under
Section 377 of the
Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent for the
offence punishable under
Section 8/18(B) of the NDPS Act, vide order
dated 04/09/2015 passed by Additional Special Judge (NDPS), Garoth,
District-Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 8/2013.

Heard.

Looking to the findings given by the trial Court in para 26 of the
impugned judgment, the appeal seems to be arguable, therefore,
admitted for final hearing.

Let bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/- be issued against the
respondent for securing his presence before this Court.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1302/2016x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Bailawable warrant issued against applicant-Kailashchandra
received unserved with the report that he was not found in given
address.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant
has neither deposited the cheque amount of Rs.3.75 Lacs nor he has
surrendered before the trial Court.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the applicant for
securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018.

List on 04/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16438/2018x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 17353/2018x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.17422/2018x
(Chamariya Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No. 98/2017, Police Station-
Chandanpur, District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under
Section 379
of the IPC r/w
Sections 25(A)/30 of the Arms Act.

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after filing
of the charge-sheet.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter is
listed before the trial Court on 16/05/2018 for recording the statement of
the witneses, therefore, he prays for time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 17/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10041/2018x
(Gopal @ Lala Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.152/2017, Police Station-
Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections
363,
364, 370 and 370(A)/34 of the IPC.

After arguing some time on the merits of the case, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.14407/2018x
Indore dated :08/05/2018
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3154/2014, an
application for amendment in the array of bail application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..

On due consideration IA No. 3154/2018 is allowed.
Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the
bail application during the course of the day.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.421/2012x
(Gangadhar @ Gangaram Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:07/05/2018
Shri Pramod Nair, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2751/2018-repeat
(7th) application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the the
appellant -Gangadhar @ Gangaram.

Appellant-Gangadhar @ Gangaram has been found guilty for
offence under Section 8 (C) /20(b) (ii)(c) of the
NDPS Act and
sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is
also submitted that the house, from which the alleged contraband has
been recovered belongs to co-accused-Gokul, who has already been
acquitted from the offence. There is nothing on record to substantiate
that the aforesaid house was actually possessed by the appellant at the
time of alleged incident. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on
the basis of certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Electoral List, in
which it was mentioned that the house owned by the appellant. The trial
Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly
concluded that the 48.20 Kgs. of Ganja has been recovered from the
house of the appellant. Applicant is in custody since 11/08/2009 and he
has already suffered more than 8 years and 6 months of his jail sentence.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be
kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render
infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

I have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record.
From the findings given by the trial Court, it is clearly evident that the house
from which alleged contraband has been recovered is belonging to the
present appellant. Tolaram (PW 11) has also admitted that the aforesaid house
is belonging to the present appellant and the agreement of sale was a fake
document, which prepared later. On this ground earlier applications of the
appellant have been dismissed on merits by this Court, vide order dated
05/11/2012 and 01/10/2015 respectively.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid, no case for grant of suspension
of jail sentence is made out. Accordingly, IA No. 2751/2018 is
dismissed.

Considering the fact that the appellant has completed his 8 years
and 6 months jail sentence. Office is directed to examine and thereafter,
list the matter on any working saturday as per circular issued by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 18449/2017x
Indore dated :07/05/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vikas Jain,
learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let present status report of Special S.T. No. 08/2016 be called
from the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Mandsaur.

List immediately after receipt of status report.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11618/2018x
(Amit Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :07/05/2018
Shri Akshay Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.526/2017, Police Station-
Heeranagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 302
and
506 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10676/2018x
Indore dated :07/05/2018
Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 8606/2018x
Indore dated :07/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue the matter.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 17225/2018x
Indore dated :07/05/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.193/2011
Indore dated :05/05/2018
Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Porwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment.

(Rohit Arya)                                 (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(Rohit Arya)                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1179/2007
Indore dated :05/05/2018

Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment

(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16781/2018x
(Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.11/2018, Police Station-Suwasara,
District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 2694/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to
file some documents.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16603/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify
the factum of illness of the applicant's wife and submit its report by the
next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16691/2018x
(Madhukar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (2nd) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.582/2017, Police Station-
Sendhwa, District-Barwani, concerning offence under
Section 8/20 of
the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after some
time.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16694/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16729/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time
to produce FSL report.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 12077/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office, failing which
this bail application shall stands dismissed without further reference to
this Court.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 16122/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Gopal Hardia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 12801/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16689/2018x
(Ajay Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.109/2017, Police Station-Neemuch
Cantt., District-Neemuch, concerning offence under
Sections 419
420 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13914/2018x
(Dileep Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.51/2016, Police Station-
Badod, District-Agar, concerning offence under
Sections 147, 148,
149, 307 and 302 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn,
however, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as
possible.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x
(Wasim Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.594/2017, Police Station-
Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Section 420 of
the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x
(Mujahid Khan Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.594/2017, Police Station-
Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under
Section 420 of
the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.12465/2018x
(Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.317/2017, Police Station-Maingaon,
District-Khargone, concerning offence under
Sections 294, 323, 307
and
302/34 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x
Indore dated :04/05/2018
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3029/2018, an
application for ignoring the defect pointed out by the Office.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Office has pointed
out defect that the Crime Number mentioned in the second bail
application does not tally with the crime number mentioned in the first
application filed before this Court. It is further submitted that earlier bail
application registered at M.Cr.C. No. 4096/2018, in which inadvertantly
Crime Number has been mentioned as 164/2017; whereas the actual
Crime Number is 851/2017 pertaining to Police-Station-Jhabua,
therefore, he prayed that defect pointed out by the Office may be
ignored.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, sufficient
ground is made out to ignored the defect pointed out by the Office.
Accordingly, IA No. 3029/2018 is allowed and defect pointed out by the
Office is hereby ignored.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary by
next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.354/1999
Indore dated :15/02/2018
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1443/2018
(Lalitabai Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:03/05/2018
Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2227/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
applicants.

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under
Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
and sentenced to 6 months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each with
default stipulation by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch. The
appeal filed against the conviction and sentence before 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Neemuch was also dismissed, vide judgment dated
21/03/2018. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments this revision
petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and
they have not misused the liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted
that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on
record and committed error in convicting the applicants. It is further
submitted that there is no possibility of the revision coming for final
hearing in the near future and fine amount has already been deposited.
Hence, the applicants may be benefitted by the suspension of jail
sentence.

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and looking to the fact that 6 wild life pheasants were
recovered from the possession of the applicants and the recovery is
proved from the statements of Gopal Bandhu-Deputy Ranger (PW 1),
Nathu Singh Chandrawat-Retd. Ranger Officer (PW 2), Lalita Yaadav-
Forest Guard (PW 3) and Chhaganlal-Chowkidar (PW 6). Thus the
Courts' below have rightly held that the prosecution is succeeded to
prove offence under
Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972 against the applicants. Learned counsel for the
applicants has failed to point out that how and in what manner the view
taken by the Courts' below is not plausible. Under these circumstances,
no case for suspension of jail sentence of the applicants is made out.
Hence, IA No. I.A. No.2227/2018 is hereby dismissed.

List the revision for admission on 17/05/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
Unique No. Dhruv Prasad Sen 171015481 Kaki 171015497
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 14348/2018x
(Vinay @ Varun Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :01/05/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection
with Crime No. 327/2016 registered at Police-Station-Malharganj, District-
Indore, for the offence punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120(B) of the IPC.

According to the prosecution story, the present applicant alongwith co-
accused Pankaj Sharma and Aadit Bafna executed three different sale deeds to
three persons of plot bearing survey No. 2/4, situated at North Raj Mohalla,
Indore. Some other persons were presented as owners of the plot.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length.
First application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court,
vide order dated 16/03/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2240/2017; whereas second
application of the applicant was also dismissed, vide order dated 30/06/2017
passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4658/2017.

After dismissal of the earlier two applications, there appears to be no
change in circumstances. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant regarding his innocency has already been considered by this Court on
16/03/2017 and after that there is no change in circustances is found, therefore,
in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of bail to
the applicant. Accordingly, this repeat bail application is dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 572/2018x
Indore dated :01/05/2018

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 182/2018x
Indore dated :01/05/2018
Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 15654/2018x
Indore dated :01/05/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to call criminal
antecedents of the applicant.

By way of last opportunity time is granted.
List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal Hon'ble
Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ
WP No. 9064/2018
Sushila Devi Garg
vs.

State of M.P. Ors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Smt. Meena Chapekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.

ORDER
(Passed on 23/04/2018)
Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents-
Municipal Corporation, Dewas not to demolish the shops situated at
Kaila Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas and to
reconsidere the application submitted by the petitioner for
compounding strictly in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the
action of the respondent No.3- Building Officer of Dewas, Municipal
Corporation by way of notices dated 07/04/2018 and 17/04/2018,
deeming the repaired rooms, as construction without permission even
after passing of the order of the considering the case for
compounding, dated 03/04/2018 passed in WP No. 7705/2018,
rejected the application for compounding and giving notice on
17/04/2018 to remove the alleged construction within 24 hours,
otherwise, it will be demolished. The petitioner while challenging the
aforesaid notices, however, on 19/04/2018, at about 7:00 p.m. the
respondent demolished the shop, therefore, petitioner filed IA No.
1835/2018, an application for amendment in the petition, by which
the petitioner claimed that respondents be directed either be restored
the shops on its original position or he may be permitted to raise
temporary arrangement to conduct the shops or paid compensation for
the said demolition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in
dispute that on the next date of filing this writ petition, the respondent
No.3-demolished the shops in question contending that these are
constructed without getting permission from the Municipal
Corporation and the land in which the aforesaid shops were
constructed is required for widening of the road.

4. Due to the demolition of the shops, the relief prayed by the
petitioner is rendered infructuous, therefore, the petitioner seeking
permission to amend the petition, either permitted her to raise
temporary structure on the land or respondents be directed to paid
compensation for the demolition of the shops. From the documents
filed alongwith the petition it appears that the aforesaid shops were
constructed on the land bearing Survey No. 645/2, situated at Kaila
Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas without obtaining prior
sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Dewas. Thus, the Municipal
Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner for removing the
aforesaid illegal construction work under Section 307 of the Nagar
Palika Act alleging that the petitioner has made this construction work
so that she can claimed compensation from the Govt., because under
the Dewas Development Plan 2015, MR-01 road is porposed in the
land where the petitioner has constructed the shops. The aforesaid
construction has already been demolished by the Muncipal
Corporation, therefore, there is no remedy is availble for the
petitioner. If he has opined that the Municipal Corporation has
removed his construction unauthorisedly, then he can claim the
compensation for the damages from the Munciipal Corporation by
filing civil suit.

5. The citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC
658 and in the case of M/s Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. Vs.
West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. Ors. AIR 2006
SCC 116, are based either in criminal case or may to breach of policy
conditions, in which the Hon'ble apex Court directed for compensation
to the petitioner, therefore, these citations are not applicable in the
prsent matter.

6. The question whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
from the Muncipal Corporation, it cannot be decided in the writ
petition. Accordingly, IA No. 1835/2018 and this writ petition have no
merits and is hereby dismissed in limine.

         (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge Judge

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal Hon'ble
Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ
WP No. 9351/2018
M/s. Shiv Industries
vs.

Punjab National Bank Ors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

ORDER
(Passed on 27/04/2018)
Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner is praying for execution of the impugned recover process by
respondenet No.2 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and all consequential acion under secruritization and
reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of Security Interst
Act, 2002.

5. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner has availed the credit facilities of cash credit and
term loan of Rs.2.60 crores to run his industry and mortgaged the
property in the respondent No.2-Bank and he is paying the installment
in time, however, due to some unavoidable circumstances, some
installment were not paid in prescribed time frame, therefore, the
respondents-Bank has issued notice to deposit the overdue amount
and mentioned that if the overdue amount has not deposited early,
then the account will be classified as NPA. Then the petitioner has
submitted that he is not in a condition to regularize loan account and
requested not to utilized the cheque as they were given as security and
requested to take possession of land, building, plant and machinery
with immediate effect and sale and adjust the outstanding amount and
mentioned the value of property as Rs. 3.75 crores, however, without
considering his representation, the respondent-Bank has classified the
loan account as NPA on 31/12/2017 and issued notice under
Section
13(2) of Sarfaesi Act. On 26/03/2018, the petitioner has handover the
possession of the mortgaged property, raw material, plant and
machinery to the respondent Bank. The respondent No.2-Bank has
appointed Effective Recoveries Pvt. Ltd. as recovery agent with
malafide intention to delay the recovery process and to charge interest
and unnecessary expenses against the petitioner and respondents are
threatening to petitioner that they will auctioned the property below
the valuation report and they will initiate the action against him by
filing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrtuments Act
without considering the fact that the cheques were given as security
of loan and not for repayment of loan. The respondents are not
following the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India and trying
to publish the auction notice of the mortgaged property without
ascertaining the actual market value of the sale.

6. The dispute arisen between the parties pertaining to the recovery
of loan amount contemplated under
Sarfaesi Act, 2002. In view of the
law laiddown by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of INDIA
SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus STATE OF M.P.
OTHERSINDIA SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus
STATE OF M.P. OTHERS, in WA No. 489/2016 decided on
21/12/2017, the action taken by the petitioner can be subjected to
appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

7. Consdering the aforesaid, we find that the petitioner has an
effective alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal
under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the proceedings
adopted by the respondents-Bank for the recovery of loan amount, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly,
dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal
under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

        (P.K. Jaiswal)                              (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge Judge

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal Hon'ble
Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ
M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018
Bharat Goyal
vs.

State of M.P.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/SPE.

ORDER
(Passed on 18/04/ 2018)
Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:-

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 17/11/2017 passed by Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Indore in Special Case No. 13/2017,
whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the
applicant regarding non-compliance of provision stipulated under
Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05/10/2016, complainant-
Devdas Makwana made a written complaint to the S.P. Lokayukta,
Indore stating that on 09/08/2016, he applied for sanction of loan
amount of Rs.2.0 Lacs before Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank for
purchasing of auto-rickshaw. On 02/09/2016, he approached the bank
to seek information regarding his loan amount and subsidy amount,
where applicant asked for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as bribe amount to
hand over the cheque of loan amount so approved and to transfer the
subsidy amount in his loan account. Bank Manager-Bharat Goyal also
stated that if the complainant will not give him a bribe of Rs.20,000/- ,
then he will not transfer the subsidy amount in his loan account,
thereafter, on his request applicant has reduced the bribe amount from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. On receiving this report, the Lokayukta
Police gave a voice recorder to the complainant so that conversation
made between the complainant and applicant can be recorded. After
recording the conversation on the tape recorder, the complainant
handed over the same to Lokayukta Police. Police made a trans-script
of conversation held between the complainant and the applicant and
after the applicant was caught red handed by receiving bribe amount
from the complainant and after due investigation, Lokayukta Police
filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused
persons before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption),
Indore. During trial on 11/10/2017, the applicant has moved an
application before the trial Court contending to expunge these
documents, which are electronic record as mandatory provisions given
under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence act are not complied with,
however, on 17/11/2017, this application has been dismissed by the trial
Court stating that at this stage the question of admissibility of the
electronic record cannot be decided, which is a subject matter of
challenge before this Court.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the
impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. He also submits
that with the charge-sheet the prosecution has filed certain documents,
which are electronic records, however, looking to the
Section 65(A) of
the Indian Evidence Act, electronic record would be admissible in
evidence, only if the aforesaid record satisfies the conditions laid down
under
Section 65(B)(2) and contents a certificate as contemplated by
Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. If these documents does
not satisfy the conditions mentioned under
Section 65(B)(2) or it does
not having certificate as contemplated under
Section 65(B)(4) of the
Indian Evidence Act, then it is not admissible. Thus, a certificate under
Section 65(B)(4) has to be issued at the time computer output
containing the information was produced. The evidence produced by
the prosecution can be taken as evidence if it is fulfill the condition
contemplated under
Section 65(B)(4), otherwise it cannot be read as
evidence against accused persons, however, in the present certificate
filed by the prosecution not contains the information as required by
Section 65(B)(4) and it is bare reproducing the Section. The trial Court
rejected the application only on the ground that it will be considered at
the time of stage of framing of charges, therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supports the reasons adopted
in the impugned order and submitted that there is no reason to interfere
with the same.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with the petition.

6. The controversy has arisen whether the certificate under Section
65(B)(4) must be satisfied the condition described under
Section 65(B)
(2) of the
Evidence Act. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of
charge against the accused, the court is required to apply his judicial
mind that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or
not ? At this stage neither the admissibility of the documents nor
defence version or materials or documents is required to consider. At
the stage of framing of charge the sufficiency of material for the
purpose of conviction is not the requirement and even if there are
material raising strong suspicion against an accused then charges can be
framed. The admissibility of any electronic document cannot be
questioned or considered at the initial stage, therefore, the trial Court
has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant regarding
non-compliance of provision stipulated under
Section 65(B) of the
Indian Evidence Act.

7. From the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby made clear that in the
present case, the arguments raised above are in the nature of defence,
which cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. In this
regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC
605 , wherein following observation
has been made as under :

"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the
court is required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or
offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to
accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this
stage, the court has to consider the material only with a
view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the
accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose
of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a
conviction. (
See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v.
Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76)."

8. Thus, on the cumulative above facts and law laid down, the
instant petition is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

        (P.K. Jaiswal)                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 439/2017
Indore dated :04/04/2018

Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /05/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1379/2007x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per office report appellant-Bhagirath has failed to mark his
presence on 07/11/2017. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Bhagirath for
securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018.

List on 29/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 901/2008x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
None for the parties.

Appellant has filed an application IA No. 2865/2018, for
withdrawal of this appeal.

It is stated in the appeal that during the pendency of the present
appeal, the appellant and the respondent, who are the real brothers have
entered into a compromise and both of them have settled all their
disputes amicably and no point of difference exists between them,
therefore, the appellant does not wish to press this appeal anymore.

Looking to the aforesaid reasons mention in the application, IA
No. 2865/2018 is allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 137/2012x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No3. - Ramjilal before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 15/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 452/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to
seek instruction in the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 73/2017x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

As per office report applicant-Rajunath has failed to mark his
presence on 22/01/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against applicant-Rajunath for
securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018.

List on 25/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1799/2017x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify
the factum of death of appellant-Rodsingh and to file reply of IA Nos.
2964/2018 and 2965/2018.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.3249/2018x
(Prakash Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:27/04/2018
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2856/2018-an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant -Prakash.

Appellant -Prakash has been found guilty for offence under
Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act and has sentenced to undergo
6 moths R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 32, 283/-.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the
evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions
present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is
submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final
disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal
shall be rendered infructuous.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant-Prakash.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2856/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and 30% of the civil liability and on
furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Prakash in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/06/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 430/2018x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
file the arabic translation of the petition.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission and IA No. 2450/2018, an
application for stay of proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014, pending
before the Family Court, Indore.

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 2450/2018 by Ordinary as
well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four
weeks, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further
reference to this Court.

Till the next date of hearing, proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014,
pending before the Family Court, Indore shall remain stayed.

List thereafter alongwith M.C.C. No. 727/2018.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 318/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1
to 5.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.6/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 pays for and is
granted 15 days time to produce respondent No.3-Kamlesh and
respondent No..5-Lalitabai before this Court.

List on 16/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 325/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri M.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No. -Kapil before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 17/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 689/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 849/2015.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 849/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Smt. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumwat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to file appropriate application for withdrawal of the present appeal.

In the meanwhile Office is directed to call the bail papers of the
appellant from the trial Court.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 767/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

None for the respondents.

Respondent No.2-Pankaj @ Billi is not present today, therefore, IA
No. 7683/2017, an application for condonation of previous non-
appearance before this Court is dismissed. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against respondent No.2-Pankaj
@ Billi for securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018.

List on 04/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 873/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after ensuing summer vacation.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 947/2015
Indore dated :27/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per office report appellant-Ramchandra has failed to mark his
presence on 21/09/2017. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ramchandra
for securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018.

List on 29/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1115/2015x
Indore dated : 27/04/2018
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.

Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Respondent-Revaram is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2956/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of respondent on
26/03/2018 before the registry of this Court.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of respondent-Revaram on 26/03/2018 before
this Court.

Accordingly, IA No.2956/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
respondent-Revaram before the Registry this Court on 26/03/2018 is
hereby condoned.

Respondent-Revaram is directed to appear before the Office of this
Court on19/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Office in this behalf.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1188/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1671/2015.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1671/2015x
Indore dated :27/04/2018
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10290/2016, an
application to release the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA
No. 10290/2016.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 10290/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to
move an appropriate application for suspension of jail sentence and for
grant of bail to the appellant-Mukesh.

List after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.742/2018
(Heeralal Vs.Laxminarayan Ors.)
Indore dated : 18/04/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.2/State.

ORDER
This revision petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 09/02/2018 passed by 2nd Addtional Sessions Judge,
Mandsaur in Cri.Appeal No.37/2017, whereby the applicant has been
convicted for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 4 months S.I., and to
pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

2. The prosecution story, applicant take credit from
complainant/respondent No.1 of Rs.25,000/- Rs. 3.0 Lacs for his
personal use. Thereafter applicant issued two cheques in favour of the
complainant, cheque No. 568610 of Rs.25,000/- dated 30/04/2008 and
cheque No. 568609 of Rs.3.0 Lacs dated 31/05/2008 of State Bank of
India, branch Sitamau, Distdrict-Mandsaur. These cheques were
presented by the complainant for encashment in his bank account,
however, the same were return unpaid on the ground of "insufficiency
of funds". Threafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the applicant ,
which was received by him on 17/10/2018, however, he has not paid
the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, complainant filed the
private complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 against the applicant before the Court Judicial Magistrate
First Class, in which the Court after considering the evidence
produced by the parties, convicted the applicant for the aforesaid
offence and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I., and to pay
compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
applicant has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which
was partly allowed and the sentence awared to the applicant has been
reduced from 6 months S.I. to 4 months S.I., however, he is directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 6.0 Lacs. Hence, the applicant has preferred
this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted
that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below.
Both the courts below have committed error in not properly
appreciating the evidence which resulted into incorrect finding, which
is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the
applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has remained
in jail for a period of more than 2 months and he has no criminal past
nor he is involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the
incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be
considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the
courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation
of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty
of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction
of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by
the applicant is established on the basis of the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the complainant-Laxminarayan (CW 1) and his
witness Sanjay Jain (CW 2). Hence, on the basis of material available
on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in
convicting the applicant under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I
am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation
and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has
already served approximately 2 months jail sentence, the sentence
awarded is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him subject
to deposit the compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs for the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act, within a period of thirty days. In default of
payment compensation amount, the applicant shall suffer one and half
months additional S.I.

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction
and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 617/2017
Indore dated :27/02/x2018
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : 26 /04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 15105/2018x
Indore dated :25/04/2018
Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to
file the documents regarding ownership of the Sanwariya Restaurant
Guest House, Indore Road, Ujjain.

List in the next week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 2483/2018x
Indore dated :25/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List after a week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11629/2018
(Mohammad Toeed Khan Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 25/04/2018
Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/2018 registered at
Police-Station-Dhar, District-Dhar, for the offence punishable under
Section 381
of the IPC.

According to the prosecution story, on 25/01/2018, complainant-Dr.
Rafiqe Sheikh lodged a complaint alleging that his servant Nazma Bi stolen Rs.
3.75 Lacs from his wardrobe. The allegation against the applicant is that he kept
the stolen articles in his house.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and he has not committed any offence. Neither he is named in the FIR nor he
instigated the co-accused-Nazma Bi for committing theft of Rs.3.75 Lacs. The
applicant is a reputated citizen of Dhar and his arrest would cause great hardship
to him and will badly hampered his reputation. The applicant is ready to
cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all the terms and conditions,
which may be imposed by this Court. In such circumstances, he prays for
anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground
that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and he is requisred for
interrogation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11907/2018x
(Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 25/04/2018
Shri H.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 191/2016
registered at Police-Station-Pipaliya Mandi District-Mandsaur, for the
offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366(2)(i), 344 and 506/34 of
the IPC read with
Sections 3/4 5/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the
competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail
before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as
possible in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1270/2012
Indore dated : 25/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for
issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @
Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested
by the Police on 22/10/2018 and he was produced before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur.

Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is
produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head
Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He
be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering
remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant.

List the revision for final hearing in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x
Indore dated :24/04/2018
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.

List after a week.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13657/2018x
(Madhopuri Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 24/04/2018
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 42/2018
registered at Police-Station-Malawar District-Rajgarh (Biaora), for the
offence punishable under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act,
1884 read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the
competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail
before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as
possible in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 14459/2018
(Biharilal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 24/04/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 366/2017
registered at Police-Station-Machalpur District-Rajgarh, for the
offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial
Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the
competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail
before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as
possible in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7360/2018 (Habeaus Corpus)x
Indore dated :23/04/2018
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2-Sudhir Kumar Das, Inspector, Police-Station-
Vijaynagar, Indore is prsent in person alongwith Cropus-Priyanka
Vishwakarma.

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No. 3/State.

Petitioner-Abhishek Rathore has filed this Habeaus Corpus for
issuance of writ, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's
wife-Priyanka Vishwakarma before this Court.

According to the petitioner the daughter of the respondent
No.1 was deeply involved in love with the petitioner and they were
major, therefore, they decided to marry each other and for the same
the Corpus-Priyanka left her parental house to marry with the
petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and corpus-Priyanka was
solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Musakhedi, Indore on
23/10/2017. After that they were living together. On 18/03/2018, the
respondent No.1 alongwith his daughters Kiran, Rekha, Rajni, son-
in-laws Hariom, Ritesh, Rajesh and nephew Vishal called the
petitioner and Priyanka to meet them in Meghdoot Garden, Vijay
Nagar, Indore ensuring that they do not want any dispsute. Believing
the respondent No.1 and his relatives, the petitioner alongwith his
wife Priyanka reached Meghdoot Garden, Vijay Nagar, Indore at
about 3:30-4:00 p.m., where all the aforesaid persons were present.
After talking for some time, the petitioner was asked by respondent
No.1 to bring drinking water bottle and carried away his wife-
Priyanka without his consent. The respondent No.1 is illegally
detained his wife without having any authority, therefore, he prays
that the respondents were directed to produce his wife before this
Court and she be handedover to his custody.

Vide order dated 05/04/2018, respondent Nos. 2 3 were
directed to produce the corpus on the next date of hearing. In
compliance of this direction the corpus is produced by Sudhir Kumar
Das, Inspector, Police-Station-Vijaynagar, Indore from the custody
of her parents.

From the documents filed alongwith petition, it appears that the
date of birth of the Corpus-Priyanka is 15/08/1997, hence she is
major and this fact is also not disputed by any party. Corpus is
present in person and stated that she wants to stay alongwith the
petitioner. However, she has not made any allegation that her
parents detained her forcefully. The corpus is attained the majority,
therefore, she is free to go anywhere and stayed with either petitioner
or her parents, thus, no direction for her custody by this Court is
required.

In view of the statement made by the corpus before this Court
during the course of hearing, in this writ petition (Habeaus Corpus)
no further direction is required.

With the aforesaid this writ petition is stands disposed of.

       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.5467/2016
Indore dated :23/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

By order dated 22/02/2018, we requested the learned
Chairperson and members of the Inspection Committee to spare
their valuable time for inspection in terms of the order passed in
Review Petition No. 1333/2017 and submit its report.

Report is awaited.

List after two weeks.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x
(Pooja Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.Nos. 10799/2018, 13694/2018 13814/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10903/2018x
(Dugaria Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however,
the trial Cout is directed to expedite the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 11144/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue the matter.

List after a week.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11216/2018x
(Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/C.B.N.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11312/2018x
(Gopal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this petition filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11317/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Ganesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report regarding
ailment of the applicant.

List after a week.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 11329/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.

List after a week.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1764/2018x
(Arvind PandeyVs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Pankaj R.Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this revision petition filed under
Section 397/401 of the
Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 14171/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking correction in the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.9250/2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had
earlier preferred a M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail. It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow
the M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 vide order dated 02/04/2018, however, due to
typographical error in the Crime Number and District, the petitioner could not
be released.

On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed.
It is directed that now the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.
No. 9250/2018 shall be read as under:-

In first para of the said order, the Crime No.70/2017 shall be read as
Crime No. 701/2017.

In the second para in 11th line of the said order, "The applicant is a
permanent resident of District-Indore" shall be read as "The applicant is a
permanent resident of District-Sehore."

This order shall be read conjointly with order dated 02/04/2018 passed
in M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands
disposed of.

A copy of this order be maintained in M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018 for
record.

Cc as per rules.

(Virender Singh)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 1638/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

At the resquest of the learned counsel for the appellant, list on
24/04/2018.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 5464/2018
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Jitendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.

Issue notice.

Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents/State and therefore, no further notice is
required.

Shri Deshmukh prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the
reply in respect of Interim relief.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as
per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12/12/1996
and 02/03/1997, in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs.
Union of India Ors, the permission of Central Govt. under
Section 2
of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is nceessary for cutting of trees. But
in the present case, without taking any prior approval of the Central
Govt. Under
Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the M.P.
State Govt. issued notification dated 24/09/2015 in exercise of powers
conferred by clause (b) of the proviso to rule 3 of the M.P. Transit (Forest
Produce Rules), 2000 and exempted private owners for pruning of some
species of forest produce .

Considering the aforesaid, we direct the respondent No. 4 and
Principal Secretaty, Forest Department Govt. of M.P. to examine the
matter and grant permission for pruning of trees subject to the
examination report of Principal Secretary and Chief Conservator of
Forest and file their detail affidavit within 3 weeks.

List thereafter.

Certified copy as per rules.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RP Nos. 1399/2017 1401/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

As the matter has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme
Court, therefore, we adjourned the case.

List after summer vacation.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

RP Nos. 595/2018, 597/2018, 599/2018 600/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Abhishek Bajpai for the review petitioners.

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax Orrisa Vs. Dhadi Sahu,
1994 Supp (1) SCC 257 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
Regulatory Commission Anrs. Vs. Himachal Pradesh
Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 219, para 24 25, we are inclined
to issue notice.

Shri Patwa accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent/State ,
hence, no further notice is required.

Shri Patwa prays for and is granted one weeks time to seek
instructions in the matter and file reply if necessary.

List immediately thereafter.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

ITA Nos. 140/2016, 141/2016, 142/2016, 76/2017, 77/2017 78/2017
x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the
appellant list after two weeks.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 5365/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed IA No. 1812/2018, an application for amendment.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List thereafter.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20169/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Petitioner-Akash Chouhan is present in person.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Pleading is completed.

Office is directed to list the matter on the question of admission
in the first week of July, 2018.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20593/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith WP No. 20605/2017.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 20605/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and
is granted 10 days time to file the reply of IA No. 17570/2017.

List thereafater alongwith WP No. 20593/2017.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ITA No. 89/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the
appellant list after a week.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WANo. 277/2018x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on IA No.
1118/2018, an application for stay.

Shri L.C. Patne accepts the notice on behalf of respondent and
he prays for and is granted 10 days time to argue the matter.

List thereafter.

IR to continue till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 2900/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent/EOW
further four weeks' time is granted to file the reply
List thereafter.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 2799/2016x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri S.D. Bohare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to19.
Office is directed to verify that whether, against judgment dated
04/03/2015 passed in S.T. No. 238/2009, any other leave to appeal is
filed or not ?

Detailed report be filed within a period of 10 days from today.
List thereafter alongwith Cr.A. No. 436/2015.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 174/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 176/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 231/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 229/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 225/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 224/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 183/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 180/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 178/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018

Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has
filed the rejoinder.

Office is directed to place it on record.
List after three weeks.

In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CONC. No. 195/2017x
Indore dated :20/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

As prayed by Smt. Ritu Bhargava, learned counsel for the
petitioner list on 08/05/2018.

In the meanwhile counter, if any be filed.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 509/2000
Indore dated :19/04/2018

Shri Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

    (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 589/2005
Indore dated :19/04/2018

Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.No. 876/2018x
(Yogendra Singh Vs. Ravindra )
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.

Heard.

This petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against judgment
and order dated 25/03/2010 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No.245/2009, whereby, judgment
dated 28/10/2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, District Ratlam in Criminal Case No.13/2009, convicting the
appellant under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short 'the Act') has been maintained.

02. The applicant on the basis of criminal complaint preferred by
the respondent, were tried for an offence under
Section 138 of 'the
Act' with regard to dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it,
found the applicant guilty and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I..
Apart from this the applicant was directed to pay Rs.48,000/- as
compensation to the respondent under
Section 357 of 'the Code'. The
appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed,
vide the impugned judgment, as stated above.

03. During the pendency of this revision, the applicnat entered into
a compromise with respondent/complainant. In this regard, I.A. Nos.
1863/2018 1864/2018 was filed by the parties on 14/03/2018. The
Principal Registrar, Bench on verification has found that the parties
have entered into compromise without any fear or coercion as they
have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences and want to
live in peace and harmony and applicant has also deposited the 15%
of the cheque amount as compound fees before the M.P. High Court,
Legal Services Committee, Bench at Indore on 06/04/2018.

04. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and pray
for compounding of the offence which is permissible under
Section
147 of 'the Act', it would be in the interest of justice to accept the
prayer made in this regard.

05. Accordingly, this Court allow the parties to compound the
offence and resultantly, set aside the judgments of the Courts below
and acquit the applicant with regard to offence under
Section 138 of
'the Act'. If the applicant is in custody, he be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.

06. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned Court for
information and compliance.

CC as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 1337/2018
Indore dated :03/04/2018
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.K. Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 14415/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated
14/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 14/02/2018 passed in
M. Cr. C. No. 1072/2018 subject to deposition of Rs. 2.83 Lacs with
interest to the bank within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. However, as per the statement of the bank
the total amount due towards applicant is Rs.9,54,543/-. It is also
submitted the applicant is a labour and he is not in a position to deposit
the aforesaid amount. Under these circumstances, he prayed for
modification in the impugned order.

Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed.
Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 14/02/2018 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018 is modified as under:

"The application filed by the applicant is allowed, subject to
deposition of amount Rs. 4.0 Lacs to the Bank within a period of 1
month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and
upon submission of the receipt of the same before the trial Court, he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of trial
Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial
with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court
concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions
enumerated under
Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C."

This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018
passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018. A copy of this order be placed in
the record of M.Cr.C No.1072/2018.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 321/2015x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1650/2017, an
application for permanent exemption from personal appearance of
appellants before this Registry.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are
poor agriculturists and illiterate persons. They resides in interior village
of District-Dhar, which is around 125 Kms., away from Indore. Now the
crops are standing in their fields and there is no other male members in
their family to look after the cattle and fields. Under these
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for permanent
exemption from personal appearance of the appellants before the
Registry of this Court.

Learne Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
IA No. 1650/2017 is allowed and the appellants are permanently
exempted from marking their presence before the Registry of this Court.
The appellants are directed to mark their presence before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur District-Dhar on 25/04/2018 and
on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 15/2015x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.1-
Wahid is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another case.

Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.1-Wahid for
securing his presence before this Court on 07/05/2018.

List on 07/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1838/2014x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi has
return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given
address.

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi
to secure his presence before this Court.

Superintendent of Police, Indore is directed to furnish the quarterly
report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the
serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Jitendra Mukhi.

As per PUD No. 5, dated 29/01/2018 received from the Special
Judge ( NDPS), Indore the recovery proceedings against surety of the
appellant is going on and recovery warrant has been issued against him.

List on 19/07/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 369/2013x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per office report appellant-Jitendra has failed to mark his
presence on 10/04/2018. It is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-
Jitendra for securing his presence before this Court on 20/06/2018.

List on 20/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 567/2012x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant -Munnalal @ Amarsingh before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 04/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 479/2010x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep
present appellant No.2-Pankaj @ Pawan before this Court.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 04/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 651/2015x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.
List alongwith Cr.R. No. 512/2015.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 512/2015x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file some necessary documents.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 7961/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Vishnu Dube, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
matter, despite the fact that today the case is listed on the mention
memo.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1116/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1666/2018, Ist
application filed under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Ajay.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw IA No. 1666/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 1666/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14959/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri A.K. Nahar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
for restoration of Cr.R.No.897/2018, which has been dismissed for
want of prosecution vide order dated 19/03/2018.

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported
with the affidavit,the present petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is allowed, subject to depositing cost of Rs.500/- in the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Indore. Cr.R. No. 897/2018 be restored to
its original number.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No.
897/2018.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9524/2017x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.
1 /State.

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
13941/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13941/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.
1 to 3/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file response to the
petition filed by the applicant under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by next
date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018x
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent Nos. 1 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on
admission alongwith IA No. 2534/2018, an application for stay. Notice
be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.651/2018
(Laxman Singh Ors.Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 17/04/2018
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

ORDER
This revision petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 01/02/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh
(Bioara) in Cri.Appeal No.412/2014, confirming the judgment dated
10/12/2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur,
District-Rajgarh (Bioara) in Criminal Case No. 03/2014, by which
the applicants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1
years RI with fine of Rs.300/- under
Section 452 IPC and 3 months
RI. With fine of Rs.300/- under
Section 323 of the IPC with default
stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28/12/201, at about
9:00 a.m., the complainant was sweeping her courtyard then
applicants came there and asked her why she is draining the water
infront of their house. On this account they started to abuse her and
assaulted her by kicks and fists. Thereafater applicant-Laxman
caused her injury by pelting stones on her head. When
complainant's sister-in-law- Kailash Bai interevened in the matter,
then applicants fled away from the spot. After the incident,
complainant-Gangabai lodged an FIR at Police Station-Machalpur and
on that basis case was registered against the applicants for the
offences punishable under
Sections 452, 323, 294 and 506(II) IPC at
Crime No. 191/2013. On completion of investigation, the police filed
charge sheet before JMFC -Jeerapur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora).

3. After framing the charge and recording the evidence, the
offences under
Sections 452 323 IPC were found proved and the
applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated herein above.
Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred
which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and
submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the
courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not
properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding,
which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for
the applicants has alternatively submitted that the applicant has
remained in jail for a period of approximately 2 1/2 months and
they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful
activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter.
He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of
imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of
imprisonment already undergone.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due
appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the
applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is
called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence
by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of
complainant-Gangabai (PW 1), Kailash Bai (PW 3), Santosh Bai (PW

4), Bapulal (PW 5) and Dr. R.S. Mathur (PW 6). Hence, considering
the material available on record, the Courts below have not
committed any error in convicting the applicants under
Sections 452
323 of IPC.

7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the
considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants have
already remained approximately 2 1/2 months in jail, therefore,
the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced to the sentence
already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine
amount of Rs.1200/-for the offence under
Section 452 IPC, and
Rs.700/- for the offence under
Section 323 IPC, within a period of
thirty days. Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.2000/- shall
be paid to the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under
Section
357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of
enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and
fifteen days RI respectively under
Sections 452 and 323 of IPC.

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction
and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

(S.K.Awasthi)
skt Judge
To Add in future-

7. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the
record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of
the respondent has much force as the perusal of the evidence
establishes the occurrence of the incident and since the injuries were
sustained by injured Lakhan, which included the injury on the head,
the incident cannot be ignored. Further, the observation of the trial
Court with respect to the testimony of the doctor cannot be found
faulted with as the doctor's opinion is to be considered in the context
of the statement of the complainant, which does not mean that the
entire prosecution story is to be disbelieved because the incident has
taken place in open surrounding and there were several witnesses to
it. With regard to the contention that this matter is counter blast,
suffice it to observe that the courts below have examined this aspect
and the appellate Court has modified the judgment of sentence
considering that the parties to the incident are resident of same
village and are related.

8. It is anyways a trite position of law, as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay
Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, that the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a
regular Court of Appeal.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.733/2017
(Sukhdev Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated : 17/04/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5737/2017, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 630 days in preferring this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
poor agriculturist and illiterate persons. At the time of pronouncement
of judgment, the applicants were not present before the appellate
Court, therefore, they were not having any knowledge about the
dismissal of the appeal. When they asked about their next date from
their counsel, then he informed them that the appeal of the applicants
is decided in their favour and the sentence awarded by the trial Court
is set-aside, therefore, they were in the impression that they are
acquitted by the appellate Court. In the last week of May, 2017 they
came to know that their appeal was dismissed when some police man
come and inquired about the applicants . After that applicants inquired
about the matter and got the certified copy of the judgments and then
they preferred this revision. Under these circumstances, learned
counsel for the applicants prays for condonation of delay of 630 days
in preferring this revision.

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
condonation of delay by contending that the trial Court has convicted
the applicants for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 323 ( 3 counts)
and 324 of the
IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 1/2 years R.I., 2
1/2 years R.I. and 6 months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/-
and Rs. 100/- respectively with usual default stipulation. The appellate
Court although affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 3
months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs.150/-
respectively for each offence. At the time of pronouncement of
judgment, applicants were not deliberately present before the appellate
Court and they filed an application for exemption of their non-
appearance, which was rejcted by the appellate Court. Aftter that they
have not surrender before the trial court and filed this revision petition
before this Court on 19/06/2017, which is not maintainable. Apart
from this the revision has been filed approximately 1 years and 7
months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court. The
reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay are not
bonafide, therefore, no sufficient ground is available to condone the
delay.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court finds that the reasons given by the applicants for
condonation of delay are vague and they have not filed any affidavit
of their counsel, who wrongly informed them that the appeal preferred
by them is decided in their favour and they are acquitted by the
appellate Court, therefore, the reasons shown in the application for
condonation of delay in filing this revision petition is not accepetable.
In the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12
SCC 693, the apex Court has held that " If sufficient cause is not
shown, delay should not be condoned." In the case of Lanka
Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (3) MPLJ SCC
135, the supreme Court held that " The courts do not enjoy unlimited
and unbridled discretionary powers in condonation of delay." In the
present case dealy caused by the applicants due to mistake and
negligence of their counsel. The reasons assigned for the condonation
of delay is not found sufficient and satisfactory and it does not seems
to be bonafide, therefore, delay cannot be condoned without sufficient
cause.

The next question arises for consideration before this Court is
whether this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicants have
not surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In
other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would
be tenable.

Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the
language of provision 397 of the
Cr.P.C. and order of Delhi High
Court passed on 31/05/2017 in Cr.R. No. 299/2017 in the case of
Manish Kumar Vs. The State GNCT of Delhi Ors. and order of
Madras High Court passed on 18/01/2016 in Cr.R. No. 588/2015 in the
case of M. Senthilkumar Vs. P. Ramlingam submits that there is no
provision or requirement under the
Cr.P.C. which compells the accused
to surrender before filing of Criminal Revision, therefore, present
criminal revision is maintainable.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
In the cases of Manish Kumar (supra) and M. Senthilkumar
(supra), Delhi High Court and Madras High Court has held that under
the provision of 397 of
Cr.P.C. there is no such requirement that for
granting of relief of suspension of sentence, the accused surrender and
undergo confinement before filing of the Criminal Revision, unless
High Courts have made such provisions in their respective rules.

From the perusal of aforesaid orders, it is evident that there is no
requirement under the
Cr.P.C. which makes it necessary for the
accused to surrender after conviction before filing Criminal Revision,
however, it is opined that if the High Court has made such provisions
in their respective rules. As per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the M.P.
High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to
surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules
48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in
custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the
sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu
Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with
the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision
against conviction is tenable only when applicants have given
declaration to the effect that the applicants are in custody or have
surrendered after the conviction.

In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this
criminal revision dismissed as not maintainable as well as time barred.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @
Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on
05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed
alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya.

Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service
report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania
and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 56/2013x
Indore dated :17/04/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have
been convicted for the offence under
Section 8(C)/15 of the NDPS Act
and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lac for
each offence with usual default stipulation. The appellants have already
suffered more than 9 years of the jail sentence and he is ready to aruge
the appeal on merits.

Office is directed to examine whether the appeal can be listed for
final hearing out of its turn under the caption of "High Court Expedited
Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases and proceed
further.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @
Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on
05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed
alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya.

Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service
report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania
and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 705/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per office report, the appellant-Prem Singh was absent on
12/03/2018 and it is a matter of bail jump.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Prem
Singh, for securing his presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 303/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
Joravarsingh @ Jorsingh is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another
case.

Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Joravarsingh @
Jorsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/05/2018.

List on 02/05/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9373/2018x
Indore dated : 13/04/2018
None for the applicant, when the case is called for second
round.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Vivek Nagar, learned counsel for the complainant
/objector.

On earlier occasions on 28/03/2018 also none appeared on
behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no
longer interested in prosecuting this petition.

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 236/2008
Indore dated :12/04/2018
Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 6105/2006
Indore dated :12/04/2018
Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.190/2017x
(Gaurav @ Goldy Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri A.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24682/2017, an
application for withdrawal of appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
already suffered the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore,
he does not want to press this appeal.

On due consideration of the aforesaid IA No. 24682/2017 is
allowed and accordingly, Cr.A. No. 190/2017 is dismissed as
withdrawn.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1463/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1481/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1465/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1471/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1473/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1474/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1480/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1464/2014
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 3 received
unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.

List on 19/06/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1752/2014x
Indore dated : 13/04/2018
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2509/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
16/02/2018 before the registry of this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was
present before the Registry on 06/08/2017 but the incharge of Registry
instead of marking the signature of the present applicant, had marked his
presence on another file, therefore, he could not mark his presence on
16/02/2018 before this Court.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant-Vikas @ Rakh on 16/02/2018 before
this Court.

Accordingly, IA No.2509/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant- Vikas @ Rakh before this Court on 16/02/2018 is hereby
condoned.

Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is directed to appear before the Office of
this Court on 09/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed
by the Office in this behalf.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.109/2014x
Indore dated :13/04/2018

Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 22631/2017, an
application for final hearing at motion stage.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that it is an admitted
matter.

Office is directed to list the matter, under caption "High Court
Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases,
whichever is earlier.

Accordingly, IA No. 22631/2017 is disposed of.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7466/2018x
(Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.50/2018, Police Station-Rau,
District-Indore, concerning offence under
Sections 420, 463, 467, 468
471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed
under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14313/2018x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14310/2018x
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14098/2018
(Goverdhan Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :13/04/2018
Shri Manish Zharola, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.799/2017, Police Station-Industrial
Area District-Dewas, concerning offence under
Sections 394 and
216(A) of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after
recording the statement of the complainant before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1310/1997
Indore dated :26/02/2018
Shri Suhel Nisar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017
Indore dated :15/02/2018
Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilyaa, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Vinod Kumar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated : /04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 226/2012x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Neither the service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued
against appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu is received nor concerning
Superintendent of Police, District-Indore has filed any affidavit in
compliance of order dated 18/01/2018.

Let direction be issued to the concerned Superintendent of Police
that he shall collect the service report of the warrant issued against the
appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu and produced it with a detailed
affidavit before this Court as to why service could not be made
effective and naratting all the steps taken by the concerned officials for
service of non-bailable warrant, failing which he shall remain present
before this Court on next date of hearing positively.

Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor, who
is present in Court for seeking the compliance of the aforesaid order.

Be listed on 11/05/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13887/2018x
(Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.421/2017, Police Station-
Industrial Area, Jaora, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Sections 366, 376(2)(m) and 506 of the IPC.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application
filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10734/2018x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicnt prays for time to argue the
matter on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today.

Prayer is allowed.

Be listed on 02/05/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13211/2018x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Let record of the court below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri P.K. Bramhabhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing
with M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Office is directed to list the matter on 20/04/2018 alongwith
M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13987/2018x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make availble the case-
diary by next date of hering positively.

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1555/2016x
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial
Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce Balestic Expert
Report with regard to the pistol, which has been recovered at the
instance of the applicant.

Be listed on 02/05/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.82/2017x
(Bhanwar Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :11/04/2018
Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
revision petition filed under
Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 5500/2017
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 99/2013x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

As per office report appellant-Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh was
failed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
26/03/2018.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-
Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh for securing his presence before this Court
on 16/05/2018.

List on 16/05/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 771/2016x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1838/2016x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let record of the court below be requisitioned.
Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 624/2017x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1067/2017x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 3671/2017
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office
within one week from today, failing which this appeal shall stands
dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 651/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let record of the trial court be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1938/2018
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Today the matter is listed for consideration of IA No. 1595/2018,
an application for exemption from filing affidavit in support of appeal
and IA Nos. 1593/2018, an application under
Section 5 of the
Limitation Act 1594/2018, an application under
Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C.

On due consideration IA No. 1595/2018 is disposed of with a
direction that the affidavit shall be produced by next date of hearing
positively.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 12825/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is not available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13513/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13595/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1207/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 8203/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is not available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 390/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 26130/2017x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 3212/2018x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9062/2015x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the applicant.

Respondent-Ashok Dashora is present in person.
Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after four weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed after two weeks.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1304/2014x
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates
are abstaining from court work.

In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List the matter after a week.

(P.K. Jaiswal)                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 419/2008
Indore dated :10/04/2018
None for the parties.

Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates
are abstaining from court work.

In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
List the matter after three weeks.

(P.K. Jaiswal)                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 480/2017
Indore dated :20/03/2018

Shri Raghav Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated :10/04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 6677/2017
Indore dated :14/03/2018
Shri Saransh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Viraj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/complainant.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

Indore dated :10/04/2018

Order passed, signed and dated separately.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11633/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 2488/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is not available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 12747/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13022/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13290/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13466/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13468/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13492/2018x
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13596/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13604/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 13623/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is not available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10041/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10080/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10233/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10428/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is not available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
diary by next date of hearing.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11113/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11407/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11631/2018X
Indore dated :09/04/2018
None for the parties.

Case-diary is available.

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2480/2018x
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
1989 by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13114/2018x
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13261/2018x
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Shri Neelesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13235/2018x
(Satish Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.105/2018, Police Station-
Hatpipaliya District-Dewas, concerning offence under
Sections 354,
354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.13277/2018x
(Ravin @ Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :06/04/2018
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.45/2018, Police Station-Warla
District-Barwani, concerning offence under
Sections 354, 354(A) and
506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 621/2015x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018
Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Devkaran is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.20316/2017, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
13/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the illness,
appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 13/10/2017.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant-Devkaran on 13/10/2017 before this
Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 20316/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant- Devkaran before this Court on 13/10/2017 is hereby condoned.

Appellant- Devkaran is directed to appear before the Office of this
Court on 06/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Office in this behalf.

                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 841/2014x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018

Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Applicant- Bhagwan Singh is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24848/2017, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant on
07/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a
driver by profession and on the aforesaid date he was out of station,
therefore, he could not appear before the registry of this Court on
07/12/2017.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of applicant-Bhagwan Singh on 07/12/2017
before this Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 24848/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
applicant- Bhagwan Singh before this Court on 07/12/2017 is hereby
condoned.

Applicant-Bhagwan Singh is directed to appear before the Office of
this Court on 10/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed
by the Office in this behalf.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1946/2014x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Shahrukh is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24092/2017, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
03/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to illness,
appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 03/10/2017.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant-Shahrukh on 03/10/2017 before this
Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 24092/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant- Shahrukh before this Court on 03/10/2017 is hereby condoned.

Appellant- Shahrukh is directed to appear before the Office of this
Court on 11/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Office in this behalf.

                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 941/2014x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018

Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant- Lalit is present in person and he has been duly identified
by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.695/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
23/01/2018 before the registry of this Court.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant-Lalit on 23/01/2018 before this
Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 695/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant- Lalit before this Court on 23/01/2018 is hereby condoned.

Appellant- Lalit is directed to appear before the Office of this Court
on 09/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
Office in this behalf.

                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1333/2016
Indore dated : 04/04/2018

Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is present in person and he has been
duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2362/2018, an
application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
11/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the accident
appellant's left leg was fractured, therefore, he could not appear before the
registry of this Court on 11/12/2017.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
previous non-appearance of appellant No.2-Jitendra Bhilala on 11/12/2017
before this Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 2362/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala before this Court on 11/12/2017 is
hereby condoned.

Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is directed to appear before the
Office of this Court on 05/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.

                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.585/2017x
Indore dated : 04/04/2018

None for the applicant, when the case is called for second
round.

None for the respondents.

On earlier occasions on 27/02/2018 and 19/12/2017 also none
appeared on behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the
applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed for want of
prosecution.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.876/2018x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to deposit
compounding fees before the trial Court and file its receipt before this
Court.

List on 06/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1354/2006x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the partis on IA No. 22674/2017, an
application for grant of permission for renewal of passport.

The facts of the case are that the sole respondent has been
acquitted vide judgment dated 26/09/2005 for offence under
Sections
6(1)(a) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Indian
Wireless Act, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 86/2004. Against the acquittal,
the present appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the daughter of
the respondent is suffering from cancer and the passport No. E 7063637
of the respondent was valid upto 12/01/2016. He has further submitted
that his daughter is required to be treated in United States of America,
therefore, permission be granted to renew his passport.

Learned Govt. Advocate has no serious objection in allowing the
application.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstnaces of the case, IA
No. 22674/2017 is allowed and the respondent namely' Devendra S/o
Rajmal Jain is permitted to take appropriate steps for renewal of his
passport. Pendency of this appeal will not come in the way of the
respondent, so far as renewal of the passport is concerned.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10178/2018x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file the legible copy of the
statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. by next date of hearing positively.

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11933/2018x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11954/2018x
(Ranjeet Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.676/2017, Police Station-Aerodrum
District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
Excise Act.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial
prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty .

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 10853/2018x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list on
06/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 463/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, list alongwith
Cr.R. No. 681/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.635/2017x
(Mallu @ Molu @ Suresh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw this revision petition filed under
Section 102 of Juvenile
Justice (Care
Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 843/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Brijesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a
weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List on 25/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1005/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a
weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.

List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 903/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent.
List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1005/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1084/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
None for the applicants.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after 8 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1089/2017x
Indore dated :04/04/2018
None for the applicant.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after 8 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7232/2018x
(Manoj Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :04/04/2018
Shri D. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.18/2015, Police Station-
Dindayal Nagar District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
Section
420 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
second application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.143/2017x
(Sanjay @ Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1943/2018-repeat
(third) application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.

Appellant No.1-Sanjay has been found guilty for offence under
Section 326/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(1B) of the Arms Act
and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. 1 years
R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,000/- with usual default
stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. It is alleged that the appellant gave a blow of sword on
the hand of the Jitendra, however from the testimony of Mukesh
Shrivastava (P.W. 14) and Dr. Ankur Maheshwari (P.W. 15), it appears
that no bony injury was found on the person of Jitendra. As per
prosecution case co-accused Mohanlal gave an axe blow on the injured
Hari Singh but he caught the axe, due to which he sustained injuries on
his left hand. As per the statement of Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava (PW 14)
dislocation of left middle finger of Hari Singh (injurred) has been found,
however, the jail sentence of the co-accused-Mohanlal has already been
suspended by this Court vide order dated 07/04/2017. There is nothing
on record to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant No.1-
Sanjay to the injured persons is found to be grievous in nature. The
appellant has already suffered more than 1 years of the jail sentence.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be
kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render
infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1943/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
each of the appellant No.1-Sanjay in the sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees
Eighty Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance
before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining
sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the
final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.890/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1294/2018, Ist
application filed under
Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Jeevan.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw IA No. 1294/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 1294/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List in the week commencing on 30/04/2018 for final hearing at
motion stage.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.877/2017x
(Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.
No.1915/2018, repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C for temporary suspension of custodial sentence of appellant
Surendra.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under
Sections 352, 307 (on two counts) of the IPC read
with
Sections 25(1B)(B), 27(2) of the Arms Act and has been
respectively, sentenced to undergo 3 month R.I., 7 years R.I. (two
counts) and 1 years R.I. (two counts) and to pay with usual default
stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted to him
has not misused by him. He further submits that the marriage of his
daughter Sapna Kunwar is scheduled to be held on 18/04/2018 and
being a father of the Sapna, the presence of the appellant is required
to perform certain rituals.

This Court vide order dated 09/01/2018 has directed to
verify the factum of the marriage of the appellant's daughter.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed the verification report received
from the SHO Police-Station-Kalukheda District-Ratlam and
submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the appellant is fixed
for 18/04/2018.

After taking into facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that the appellant belongs to Hindu religion and
his daughters' marriage is going to be solmenized on 18/04/2018 and
in order to perform certain customary rites and rituals his presence is
necessary.

In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to
temporarily suspended the custodial sentence imposed against the
appellant for a period of 9 days.

Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1915/2018 is
hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond
and surety bond, each in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy
Five thousand Only), by the appellant - Surendra Singh, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court he shall be released on bail
temporarily from 14/04/2018 to 22/04/2018, subject to the condition
that he shall surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on
23th April, 2018 for being taken into custody and sent to jail to
suffer the remaining sentence.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 12606/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri L. Sethia, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the
entire copy of the charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1284/2016x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1320/2016.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1320/2016x
Indore dated : 02/04/2018
Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicant- Jaamsingh is present in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.1518/2018, an
application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 08/01/2018
before the registry of this Court and change of date of appearance before
the Registry of this Court.

Applicant submits that he has met with an accident and he is bed
ridden, therefore, he is not in a position to travel at Indore, therefore, he
could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
09/11/2017. Thereafter, he also moved an application for change of date,
however, same application was considered and the next date was given on
08/01/2018. However, on the said date also he was in bed ridden,
therefore, he could not able to mark his presence.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
non-appearance of applicant-Jaamsingh on 08/01/2018 before this Court.

Accordingly, IA No.1518/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
applicant- Jaamsingh before this Court on 08/01/2018 is hereby
condoned.

Applicant- Jaamsingh is directed to appear before the Office of this
Court on 07/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Office.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11304/2016x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri A.Guru, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 656/2017x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 798/2017x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 22/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 4206/2017x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after 8 weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.6936/2017x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri A.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri P.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have
entered into compromise, however, they could not produced the
compromise application before this Court, therefore, he prays for time.

Prayer is allowed.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that learned counsel
for the applicants is not complied with the direction issued by this Court
on 16/03/2018.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will comply the
order during the course of the day.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.974/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri J.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Trial Court record is available.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to
argue on IA No. 1444/2018, an application under
Section 397(2) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
applicant-Heerasingh.

Pryaer is allowed.

List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2515/2018x
(Ganesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State .

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2130/2018-
an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Ganesh.

Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A)
of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. and to pay
fine of Rs.2,500/- with usual default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly
appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions,
contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have
been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail
during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in
custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render
infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2130/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
each of the appellant-Ganesh in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.56/2013x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
of IA No. 1436/2018, repeat (sixth) application under
Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant No.1-Parmanand.

By way of last opportunity time is granted.
List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.839/2013x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.577/2017x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-
Mayur.

By way of last opportunity time is granted.
List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.340/2014x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri K.P. Pande with Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 1371/2018, 6 th
application filed under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission
of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1371/2018.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 1371/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.50/2015x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
of IA No. 4555/2017, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-
Indresh.

By way of last opportunity time is granted.
List after three weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.426/2016x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.672/2016x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1830/2016x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Sandeep Rajoria, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to
argue on IA No. 1004/2018, third application under
Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant-
Saddam.

Pryaer is allowed.

List in tdhe week commencing 23/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x
(Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.239/2017, Police Station-Jharda
District- Ujjain concerning offence under
Sections 307, 447, 341,
294,506, 323 and 325/34 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x
(Kadvi Bai Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (fourth)) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
grant of bail in connection with Crime No.73/2016, Police Station-
Balwada District- Khargone concerning offence under
Sections 302
and
307/34 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition .

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x
Indore dated :02/04/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to complied with order
dated 07/03/2018.

By way of indulgence one week's time is granted.
List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.628/2013x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Parties through their counsel.

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 347/2013.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.347/2013x
Indore dated :28/03/2018

Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Perused the PUD dated 04/01/2018, received from the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore. In PUD prayer has been made for
transmission of record of Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 (Dr. Nalini
Jhaveri Vs. Kishore Parikh).

Aforesaid record of the Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 had
already been sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore by this
Registry vide dispatch No. RD-436 dated 03/03/2014.

Let necessary information be sent to the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Indore in this regard.

With the aforesaid PUD stands disposed of.
List the revision for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.R.
No. 628/2013.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1499/2016x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2

4.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the certified copy of the charge-sheet.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1062/2017x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per Office report, applicant-Sudhir could not mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court on 20/03/2018.

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant-
Sudhir for securing his presence before this Court on 30/04/2018.

List on 30/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3886/2017x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.686/2010x
Indore dated :28/03/2018

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

As per the report received from the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar,
appellant has suffered the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court.
Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant does not
wish to press this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.651/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the Courts' below be called for.
List immediately after received of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27503/2017x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available by case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

IR to continue till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1221/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.689/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2096/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the Courts' below be called for.
List immediately after received of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5204/2017
(Ram @ Smackchi Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/03/2018
Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.22553/2017- an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Ram @ Smackchi.

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section
392/
34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to
him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR.
Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had
identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has
refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the
Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any
person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized
article has been conducted during the course of investigation.
Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not
supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the
appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under
Section 392 of the
IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant
cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him
may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.22553/2017 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Ram @ Smackchi in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance
before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining
sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the
final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6284/2017
(Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:28/03/2018
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1616/2018-
an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam.

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section
392/
34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was
on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to
him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR.
Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had
identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has
refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the
Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any
person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized
article has been conducted during the course of investigation.
Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not
supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the
appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under
Section 392 of the
IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant
cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him
may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1616/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
the appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam in the sum of Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1452/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri M. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two
weeks time to argue on IA No. 1145/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
to appellant No.1-Bharatsingh.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018
Indore dated :18/04/2018
Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission
alongwith IA No. 1934/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made
returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1388/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on
admission . Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2086/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri K.K. Bundela, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section
15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2097/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2421/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2421/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the court below be called for.
List immediately after received of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2545/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the court below be called for.
List immediately after received of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11441/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positvely.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11585/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.12275/2018x
Indore dated :28/03/2018
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent Nos. 1 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on
admission alongwith IA No. 2129/2018, an application for stay. Notice
be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4685/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondent, though duly served.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants on IA No. 2107/2018, an
application for condonation of delay of 1 days in serving the humdast
notice to the respondent.

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
condone the delay.

Accordingly, IA No.2107/2018 is allowed and delay of 01 days in
serving the humdast notice to the respondent is hereby condoned.

List after two weeks.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.5901/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
None for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the court below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6331/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.2/State.

On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as registered AD. Notice
be made returnable within four weeks.

Till the next date of hearing, no correcive action shall be taken
against the applicant.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8520/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
None for the parties.

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8871/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

None for the respondenet No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to argue the matter.

List therafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8889/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to argue the matter.

List therafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.22156/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23036/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Sandeep Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

Meanwhile record of the court below be called for.
List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23324/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23465/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Pourush Raka, learned counsel for the applicant.
Notice issued against respondent No.1 return unserved.
On payment of fresh process-fee within three working days, let
notice be issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as by registered
AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23821/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23989/2017x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11739/2018x
(Amrita Bai Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.06/2018, Police Station-Bercha
District- Shajapur concerning offence under
Sections 363 and
364(A)/34 of the IPC.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11631/2018x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10428/2018x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11907/2018x
Indore dated :27/03/2018
Shri N.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 5799/2018x
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list
of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed
on record.

List on 27/03/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 5785/2018
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list
of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed
on record.

List on 27/03/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No. 2078/2018x
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Abhishek Tugnagwat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed IA No.
1972/2018, an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay .

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section
15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 alongwith notice of IA No.
1972/2018.

List in the week commening 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1324/2018x
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the Courts below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 7502/2018x
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Ratnesh R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to
call report from the concerned SHO that what steps he has taken to
produce the prosecutrix before the trial Court for recording her
statement in the light of
Section 35(1) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4797/2018x
(Pappu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
bail in connection with Crime No.468/2016, Police Station-Badnawar District-
Dhar concerning offence under
Sections 376, 506 of the IPC read with Section ¾
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this third application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4770/2018x
(Manjit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :26/03/2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.
Heard. Case diary perused.

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in
connection with Crime No. 1/2017, Police Station-CBN, Mandsaur District-
Mandsaur concerning offence under
Sections 8/15 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 71/2018
Indore dated :16/03/2018
Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the Courts below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. 5000/2017x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 21856/2017, an
application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 300 days in filing this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's
father is old and sick person aged about 62 years and the appellant is in
custody, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed
time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of
delay.

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor.

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
condone the delay.

Accordingly, IA No. 21856/2017 is allowed and delay of 300 days
in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court be called for.
List the appeal immediately after receipt of the record for
consideration of IA No. 1918/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of
bail to the appellant-Sodan Singh.

(S. K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2267/2018x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.617/2016x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the appellant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks for consideration of IA No. 182/2018, an
application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Lakhan Singh.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.6098/2018x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
time to file reply of IA No. 1950/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
to the appellant-Salam.

List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.511/2018x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
Shri Gyanendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four
weeks time to argue on IA No. 377/2018, an application under
Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
to the appellant-Ganpatlal Kumawat.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1166/2018x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.

List after two weeks alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 10790/2018 for
analogous hearing.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8179/2017x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent.
At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter
in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos.
8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and
8210/2017 for analogous hearing.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8211/2017x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent.
At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter
in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos.
8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and
8210/2017 for analogous hearing.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3771/2018x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the applicant.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.468/2017x
Indore dated :23/03/2018
None for the applicants.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after six weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.964/2017x
(Irfan Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :23/03/2018
Shri Pankaj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants does not wish to press this
criminal revision filed under
Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4311/2018x
(
State of M.P. vs. Manoj)
Indore dated :23/03/2018

Smt. Archana Kher, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

None for the respondent.y

ORDER

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal

against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Additional 4 th Additional Sessions

Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No. 302/2012, whereby the respondent-

Manoj has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of

the IPC.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-Lalchand filed a

private complaint against the respondent on the ground that on 25/05/2010, he

purchased a motorcycle from one Bhaiyyu S/o Sadat Ali bearing registration No.

MP-09-MS-4721 and an agreement was executed to this effect. Under the

agreement parties were agreed that the complainant-Lalchand will use the

motorcycle and if he found in defect in it, then transaction shall be cancelled.

Complainant-Lalchand has handedover a cheque of Rs.40,000/- as a surety and it

was also agreed that if the complainant found the vehicle in good condition then

Bhaiyyu will entitled to encash the aforesaid cheque. After using the motorcycle

for a period of one month the complainant cancelled the agreement and return

back the motorcycle to the Bhaiyyu. When the complainant demanded the

aforesaid cheque then Bhaiyyu did not return the him the cheque. On
11/07/2011, complainant-Lalchand received a notice from the Advocate of

respondent-Manoj, in which, it was stated that the cheque No. 3526720 was

issued by him to the respondent towards financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/-.

When the cheque was presented for encashment the same were dishonoured for

"insufficiency of funds", thereafter, respondent filed a private complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against complainant before

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar District-Dhar and on the basis of the

above complaint the Court has taken the cognizance against the complainant

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Then complainant

filed a written complaint against the respondent at Police-Station-Badnawar

regarding cheating and forgery, however, police has not taken any action in the

aforesaid report. Thereafter, complainant filed a private complaint against the

respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar. After receiving the

report, the statement of the complainant-Lalchand and his witnesses were

recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the

material available on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar registered

the complaint against the respondent for commission of the offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC. The offence registered against

the respondent was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed

to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 4 th

Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar.

3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire record by the impugned

judgment held that the prosecution has failed to proved that the cheque issued

by the complainant-Lalchand was forged by the respondent-Manoj.

4. learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court has

wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-Lalchand as well the

documentary evidence available on record and acquigtted the respondent. Hence,

he prayed for grant of leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

applicant and perused the record.

6. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view

that the trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant and the material

available on record, does not found prove that the complainant has issued cheque

in pursuance to the agreement for sale of motorcycle in favour of the Bhaiyyu

and he handed over the same cheque to the respondent, who misused the same

and presented with the bankers for encashment. From the perusal of record, it

appears that the dispute is of a civil nature and to given a cloak of criminal

offence this complaint has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the finding of

acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears to be just and reasonable. No

perversity is apparent in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court

7. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against

impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta) (S. K. Awasthi)
Chief Justice Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.24615/2017x
Indore dated :19/02/2018
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered
at Crime No. 596/2017 at Police Station Barwah, District-Khargone
for offences punsihable under
Section 354(d) of the IPC; Section
67(a) of the I.T. Act;
Sections 11(4), 12 3/4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with
Sections 3(2)(vii)
3 (2)(5)(k) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

From the perusal of the documents available on record, it
appears that neither the copy of FIR has been filed nor the case-diary
is available, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
file the copy of the FIR. Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is
directed to make available the case-diary be next date of hearing
positively.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Appeal No.418/2014x
(State of M.P. ors. vs. Dushyant Pagare)
Indore dated :22/03/2018

Shri Mukesh Porwal, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.
None for the respondent.

ORDER

Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single

Bench on 04/03/2014 in writ petition No. 12598/2013, whereby transfer of the

writ petitioner vide order dated 04/10/2013 was set aside.

In an appeal against the order of setting aside the transfer, this Court

passed an order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on

16/04/2014. An application for vacation of stay was dismissed on 09/05/2014.

The respondent has filed an application IA No. 4989/2017 pointing out

that the writ petitioner has been now transferred from Barwani to Shahdol on

10/07/2017 and the writ appeal has become infructuous.

In view of the fact that transfer of the writ petitioner to Barwani, which

was set aside by the learned Single Bench was stayed and subsequently, the writ

petitioner has been transferred to Shahdol, we do not find that any cause in the

present writ appeal survives.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

            (Hemant Gupta)                               (S. K. Awasthi)
Chief Justice Judge
skt
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1030/2014
Indore dated :21/03/2018

Shri S.K. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1057/2014.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1057/2014x
(Azad Shah Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:21/03/2018
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1832/2018-
repeat (second) application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant-Azad Shah.

The appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections
379
379/34 of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to
undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for
each offence.

First application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of
bail to appellant-Azad Shah has been allowed by this Court, vide order
dated 31/07/2014 subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 08/12/2014 and
on all such future dates as may be fixed in that behalf during the
pendency of this appeal. But appellant could not furnish the bail bond
before the trial Court, therefore, he filed an IA No. 9/2015, an
application for extension of time to furnish bail bond, which was
allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/02/2015 and the appellant is
directed to furnish the bail bond in the line of the order dated
31/08/2014 and shall remain present in the Registry on 28/04/2015 and
on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf. Thereafter,
appellant regularly appear before this Court for his appearance. During
pendency of this appeal, the appellant was absent on 16/03/2017. Thus
this Court, vide order dated 16/05/2017 directed to issued non-bailable
warrant against the applicant. Thereafter, on 07/11/2017, it was
informed that the appellant is detained in Central Jail, Bherugarh in
some other case, therefore, production warrant was issued against him
and in pursuance of aforesaid production warrant the appellant was
produced before this Court on 13/12/2017 and since then he is in
custody.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was
detained in jail since 12/03/2017 in some other case, therefore, he could
not mark his presence before this Court on 16/03/2017 and he ensure
that in future appellant shall regularly appear before the registry of this
Court on all dates as may be given in this behalf. Under these
circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Azad Shah in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2097/2018x
(Kamlesh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:21/03/2018
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1873/2018-
an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellants-Kamlesh Kailash.

Each of the appellant has been found guilty for offence under
Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years
R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly
appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions,
contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have
been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail
during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellants cannot be kept in
custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by them may render
infructuous. The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount before the
Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1873/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
each of the appellants-Kamlesh and Kailash in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular
appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain
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 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2085/2018x
(Sangram Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:21/03/2018
Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the court below be called for.
Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1748/2018-
an application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
appellant-Sangram.

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections
451,
354(A) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has
respectively been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I., 6 months R.I. and 3
years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with
usual default stipulation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly
appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions,
contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have
been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail
during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in
custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render
infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
and for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1748/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the
appellant-Sangram in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the
execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against
the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this
appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

List in due course.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge
skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10711/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10229/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List on 28/03/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9899/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10184/2018x
(Kaju Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10220/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10891/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time
to file written objection on the bail application.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10892/2018
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10896/2018
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10908/2018
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10975/2018
(Arjun Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to
renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix
before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.11009/2018
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017
Indore dated :21/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4774/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List on 28/03/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.5235/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the next week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9875/2018x
(Raju @ Rajesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.C. Waghela, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.926/2016x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two
weeks' time to argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.617/2018x
Indore dated :21/03/2018
Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1860/2018, an
application for amendment in the array of IA No. 460/2018, an
application filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.

On due consideration IA No. 1860/2018 is allowed.
Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the IA
No. 460/2018 during the course of the day.

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1797/2018x
Indore, Dated:21/03/2018

None for the appellants.

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2197/2018.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.2197/2018x
Indore, Dated:21/03/2018

Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record of the Court below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S.K. Awasthi)
skt Judge
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.611/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018

Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary
by next date of hearing positively.

Learned counsel for the applicant is also directced to file the copy
of the entire charge-sheet.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1584/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter
in the week commencing 02/04/2018 alongwith Cr.A. No. 1463/2017.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3173/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue on the maintainability of the revision.

List after a week .

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3286/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the
entire charge-sheet.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3344/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to argue the matter.

List after a week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4206/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the partis prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.5090/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondent.

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.5567/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri M.K. Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice
be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List thereafter.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 6692/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Let record of the Court below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 6689/2017x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
Let record of the Court below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10332/2018x
(Gulab Kapoor Vs. Shilpa)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.
After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court, which are alleged in the present
petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10818/2018x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is available.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
argue the matter.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10856/2018x
(Sitarasingh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
second application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty
to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial
prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.26580/2017x
(Rajendra @ Bacha Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
second application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty
to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial
prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6108/2018x
(Sheru Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
second application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.7586/2018x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to file FSL report
with regard to liquor seized from the possession of the applicant.

By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8027/2018x
(Champalal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to
renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix
before the trial Court.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8418/2018x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9752/2018x
(Shekhar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 1213/2018x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Let record of the Courts' below be called for.
List immediately after receipt of the record.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9933/2018x
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Case-diary is not available.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
diary by next date of hearing positively.

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.10754/2018x
(Nandlkishore Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :20/03/2018
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
application filed under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.1313/2017x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1872/2018, an
application for grant of temporary bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop
Dangi.

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this
Court to withdraw IA No. 1872/2018.

Pryaer is allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 1872/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List the matter after three weeks for consideration of IA No.
6821/2017, an application 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No.185/2011x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the appellants.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1353/2016x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the parties.

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.803/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicants are directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands
dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.897/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office
within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands
dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1022/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the parties.

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1161/2018 x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1169/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office
within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands
dismissed without further reference to this Court.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 1938/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the appellant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
adjourned.

List after two weeks.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9365/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks
time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.

List thereafter .

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 691/2015x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order
dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing
postively.

List on 04/04/2018 .

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 639/2015x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri Ranjeet Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order
dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing
postively.

List on 04/04/2018 .

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 11331/2015x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicants.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on
04/04/2018
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No. 163/2016x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
None for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on
04/04/2018
(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.363/2018x
(Joy Bamiya Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :16/03/2018
Shri Jil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
revision petition.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if
the applicant is moved fresh application by showing change of
circumstances before the Juvenile Justice Board, then same shall be
considered in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, list in the next
week.

(S. K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.1199/2018x
Indore dated :19/03/2018
Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Respondent No.1- Vaishali Raipuriya is present in person before
this Court.

Shri Hemant, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.2 /State.

This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401
of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 08/03/2018 passed by IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani District- Barwani in Criminal
Appeal No.101/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 29/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Barwani, District Barwani in Criminal Case No. 01/2016, whereby the
applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under
Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he has been
sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.

Heard on I.A. No.1811/2018, an application under Section 397
(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of the applicant-Rajkumar.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
has already paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent
No.1/complainant-Vaishali Raipuriya on 12/03/2018 and she has
sworned the affidavit in this regard. It is further submitted that the
applicant was on bail during the trial and the liberty so granted was not
misused by him. There is no possibility of the revision coming up for final
hearing in near future and hence, the applicant may be benefited by
suspension of sentence.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for
rejection of the application.

Respondent No.1/complainant submits that she has no objection if
the application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
applicant is allowed.

In view of the above, awaiting admission, this Court is of the
opinion that the application I.A.No.1811/2018 deserves to be and is
allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining sentence
awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of
this revision petition and he shall be released on bail subject to
depositing compensation amount and on furnishing p