SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Thawaria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2017

Cr.A. No.761/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Considering the fact that one more Criminal
Appeal has been filed by the appellant through legal aid
authority on 17.04.2017 vide Cr.A.No.696/2017, we
permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal.
With the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
On filing of certified copy of the documents
original be returned to the learned counsel for the
appellant.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4148/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on IA No.3111/2017, an application for
condonation of delay.
Issue notice of IA No.3111/2017 to the
respondents on payment of process fee within a week,
returnable within six weeks.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.510/2017
28.04.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/S.P.E. Lokayukt.
After arguing for some time, Shri A.S.Rathore,
learned counsel for applicant prays for withdrawal of this
revision with liberty to file petition under Section 70 of
Cr.P.C. before the trial court.
Prayer is allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty, Cr.R.No.510/2017 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.771/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Shanno Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/State, therefore, no further notice is required.
Record of the trial court be called for.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.758/2017
28.04.2017
Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/State, therefore, no further notice is required.
Record of the trial court be called for.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.592/2010
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 along with
Cr.A.No.541/2010.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.594/2010
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 along with
Cr.A.No.541/2010.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.541/2010
28.04.2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant,
let the matter be listed on 20.06.2017 for appearance of
appellant No.1 Kalu @ Harish Mahawar.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.40/2011
28.04.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.477/2017, an application for
seeking direction for furnishing of bail bond and sureties
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
On due consideration, application (IA No.477/17)
is allowed. Further four weeks’ time is granted to furnish
bail bond and sureties as per order dated 22.01.2016. He
is also directed to mark his presence before the Registry
of this Court on 25.09.2017 and on all other subsequent
dates as may be given in this behalf.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
FA No.149/2017
28.04.2017
Shri A.Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant
prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file
petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
On filing of certified copy of the documents
original be returned to the learned counsel for the
appellant.
C.c. as per rules.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4323/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day’s time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4331/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day’s time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4342/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted 15 day’s time to cure the defects as pointed
out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4351/2017
28.04.2017
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate for the applicant/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant/State prays for
and is granted one week’s time to cure the defects as
pointed out by the office.
Record of the trial court be called for.
List thereafter.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1154/2010
28.04.2017
None for the appellant No.1 Sitaram, even after
second round.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Last application for suspension of jail sentence
was decided on 19.04.2017 and within a period of three
days this second application has been filed by Shri
K.C.Paliwal, Advocate.
In absence of learned counsel for the appellant,
IA No.3332/2017 is dismissed as not pressed.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.730/2014
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Shri Ajay Bagdiya, Advocate, today
he is engaged by Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel counsel
for the appellant and prays for and is granted one week’s
time to argue on IA No.3312/2017.
Let the matter be listed after summer vacation, as
prayed.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.643/2016
28.04.2017
Parties through their counsel.
As prayed by Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State, last opportunity is
granted to submit the report.
Let the matter be listed on 01.05.2017.

(P.K.Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1320/2014
12.04.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the
appellant Nasir Khan.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
complainant.

Heard on IA No.1664/2017, which is an
application filed by appellant Nasir S/o Fateh Khan for
suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain in ST
No.277/12 and grant of bail.

Appellant Nasir Khan has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with
Section 364-A of IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default
stipulation.

As per prosecution story, appellant and other
co-accused entered into conspiracy for kidnapping
Hasmukhlal from Mahidpur for taking ransom and in
pursuance of conspiracy other co-accused persons on
24.12.2011, at 9.00 a.m. Abducted Hasmukhlal from
Village Sekakhedi, Tehsil Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain and
beated and robbed him and threatened to kill him and
released him after taking Eight Lakhs as ransom.
Appellant also intending to facilitate the commission of
an offence kept watch on Hasmuklal’s house and gave
the information to co accused on mobile to facilitate
them in committing the crime.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted
that there is no evidence against appellant Nasir on
record which connects appellant with the offence. Only
on the basis of suspicion learned trial court found
appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 364A
365 read with Section 149 of IPC read with Section
120-B of IPC. Prosecution produced only three
circumstances regarding appellant’s involvement in the
conspiracy of said crime :-

(i) Appellant Nasir was seen before the house of
Hasmukhlal at the time of incident, (ii) Appellant was
seen talking with other co-accused Yogesh and Sachin
and (iii) prosecution also produced call details for
proving that appellant Nasir was connected with non-
applicant. But only on the ground that appellant was
found in front of the house of Hasmukhlal on the date of
incident or some persons saw him talking with co-
accused Sachin on the day , are not sufficient to connect
appellant with the offence. Likewise regarding call
details, Police did not file Certificate under Section 65-
B of the Evidence Act, so the call details are not
admissible in evidence. Even otherwise from the call
details also it is not proved that appellant is connected
with the crime. Disposal of appeal will take time, so
sentence be suspended and appellant be released on
bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard also relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment
passed in Harpal Singh @ Chhota V/s. State of
Punjab, in which Apex Court held that,
“Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-
B – Electronic evidence – Requirements
for admissibility of – Principles reiterated

– Held, electronic evidence in nature of
secondary evidence cannot be admitted
unless requirements of Section 65-B are
satisfied – In present case evidence of
incriminating call details (relating to case
of conspiracy to kidnap for ransom) were
sought to be proved by evidence of PWs
24, 25, 26 and 27 on basis of printed copy
of computer generated call details but
prosecution failed to adduce certificate
relatable thereto as required under
Section 65-B(4) – Said call details, held
inadmissible – Though conviction was
upheld on basis of other evidence relating
to electronic record being a special
provision, the general law on secondary
evidence under Section 63 read with
Section 65 of the Act would have to yield
thereto. It has been propounded that any
electronic record in the form of secondary
evidence cannot be admitted in evidence
unless the requirements of Section 65-B
are satisfied. ”

Learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposed prayer and submitted that from the prosecution
evidence it is clearly proved that applicant was also
involved in the crime of abducting Hasmukhlal for
ransom and pray for rejection.

We have gone through the record and
argument put forth by both the parties. Looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion, that it is a fit case for suspension of
jail sentence therefore, without commenting on the
merits of the case we are of the view that the jail
sentence of the appellant Nasir, be suspended subject to
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with one local surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for
his appearance before this Court/Registry on 01.08.2017
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in
this behalf.

[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let
the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1504/2014
12.04.2017

Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the
appellant Sachin @ Hemraj.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.

Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
complainant.

Heard on IA No.612/2016, which is an
application filed by appellant Sachin @ Hemraj S/o
Raju Yadav for suspension of sentence awarded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain in
ST No.277/12 and grant of bail.

Appellant Sachin @ Hemraj has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
364-A of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and
fine of Rs.50,000/- and under Sections 395 of IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-
with default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, appellant and other
co-accused entered into conspiracy for kidnapping
Hasmukhlal for ransom and in pursuance of conspiracy
applicant and other co-accused persons on 24.12.2011,
at 9.00 a.m. Abducted Hasmukhlal from Village
Sekakhedi, Tehsil Mahidpur, Distt. Ujjain. They beated
and robbed him and threatened to kill him and released
him after taking Eight Lakhs as ransom.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted
that there is no reliable evidence on record against
appellant Sachin @ Hemraj on record which connects
him with the crime . Learned Additional Sessions Judge
only on the basis that Hasmukhlal identified the
appellant as an accused and DNA profile of one
chewing gum found in the car in which Hasmukhlal was
allegedly transported from Mahidpur to other place,
matched with that of appellant found appellant guilty,
while regarding identification of appellant as an accused
many infirmities are there in the statement of
Hasmukhlal. Likewise it is not proved from the
prosecution evidence that DNA profile of chewing gum
found in the car matched with that of appellant. Learned
trial court committed mistake in finding appellant guilty
for the offence under Section 364-A and 395 of IPC.
The appeal will take time so sentence be suspended and
appellant Sachin be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that there are ample
evidence against appellant to connect him with the
crime. Hasmukhlal clearly identified appellant as an
accused, who was involved in the abduction of
Hasmukhlal for ransom. So, learned trial court did not
commit any mistake in convicting appellant for the
offence under Sections 364-A 395 of IPC. and prayed
for rejection the prayer.

We have gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. It appears from
the prosecution evidence that Hasmukhlal himself
identified the appellant as one of the abductor.Police
also recovered Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand
from their possession. That apart there are other
evidence also on record to connect the appellant with
the crime. So, looking to the evidence produced by the
prosecution against the appellant, it is not appropriate to
suspend his sentence and release the appellant on bail,
hence, the prayer is rejected.

The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let
the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.242/2016
07.04.2017

Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.2481/2016, which is First
application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by
appellant Afzal @Bhura for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.

Appellant Afzal @ Bhura has been
convicted under Section 302 of IPC in two count and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/- in each count and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further imprisonment for six month RI for
each default.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that there is no direct evidence against the appellant.
Although prosecution witness Kalimullah (PW1),
Mehabub Khan (PW2) deposed that they saw Afzal @
Bhura beating his wife deceased Vahima but in this
regard their statement were afterthought. Likewise,
Lukman (PW4) and Shahabuddin (PW5) deposed that
they saw accused Afzal @ Bhura on spot at the time of
incident but their statement also appears afterthought.
Learned trial court also disbelieved their statements in
this regard. That apart, there is no other direct evidence
on record against appellant/ accused. Prosecution case is
solely based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of
circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances is to
be proved while in this case no chain of circumstances
has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt against appellant. Although deceased Wahima
wife of appellant/accused and son Danish were found
dead in the house of appellant and death is homicidal in
nature but from the prosecution evidence as well as
defence evidence it is proved that at the time of incident
appellant/accused was not at home. There is no other
circumstantial evidence on record to connect the
appellant/ accused from the offence. Learned trial court
without appreciating evidence wrongly found the
appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC.
Hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore,
appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail. Learned counsel of applicant also placed reliance
on this court’s judgement passed in Punja Vs State of
M.P. reported in 2006(4) MPHT 17.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State opposed the prayer and submitted that there is
ample evidence on record to connect the accused
appellant with the aforesaid charges and prayed for
dismissal of the application.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the considered opinion, that
appellant Afzal @ Bhura’s case is fit for suspension of
jail sentence therefore, without commenting on the
merits of the case we are of the view that the jail
sentence of the appellant Afzal @ Bhura, be suspended
subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with one local surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for
his appearance before this Court/Registry on 6.7.2017
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in
this behalf.

Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in
due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge

ns
Cr.R. No.1616/2016
30.03.2017

Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt)
Arguments heard.

Reserved for orders.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns

04.04.2017

Order passed signed and dated.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6931/2016
27.03.2017

Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey,J.

Parties through their counsel.
This application has been filed under Section
378 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated
19.02.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhar in ST No.96/2015; whereby he acquitted the non-
applicant from charges under Sections 366, 363, 376 (2)(n)
and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that on 13.04.2015 at
12.00 p.m., non-applicant came to the prosecutrix's house
situated at 142, Patel Marg, Rasmandal, Dhar and abducted
her on the pretext of marriage and took her from her house
on foot to Mohan Talkies, Dhar, from there he took her to
Badwah by bus and then to Indore and from Indore to
Shirdi. In Shirdi he kept prosecutrix in a hotel and
committed rape with her and also threatened to kill her.
Thereafter he took prosecutrix back to Dhar and left her at
Ghoda Chaupati and threatened to kill her if she narrated
the incident to anybody. On that incident Crime
No.248/2015 was registered at P.S. Dhar for the offence
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
After investigation Police filed chargesheet. On that
chargesheet ST No.96/2015 was registered. Learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar framed charges against
non-applicant for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376
(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act. However, after trial he acquitted
non-applicant from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved
the applicant filed this leave to appeal.

[3] Learned counsel for the applicant/State
submitted that from the entry of scholar register of
prosecutrix it is clearly proved that on the date of incident
applicant was minor but learned trial court not relying on
that document wrongly held that applicant was major at the
time of incident. Likewise from the statement of prosecutrix
and other prosecution witnesses it is also proved that non-
applicant abducted and committed rape with her. While
learned trial court without appreciating the evidence
wrongly acquitted the applicant from the aforesaid charges.

[4] On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-
applicant submitted that learned trial court after evaluating
all the evidence rightly held that applicant was major at the
time of incident and a consenting party and rightly
acquitted the non-applicant and prays for rejection.

[5] This court has gone through the record and the
arguments put forth by the parties. Although in the scholar
register (Ex.P/11) the date of birth of prosecutrix is
mentioned as 02.11.1998. From that date the age of
prosecutrix appears 17 years 7 months on the date of
incident. But that entry of scholar register was not proved
properly because prosecution did not produce the person
who made that entry. The father of the prosecutrix Dinesh
(PW-2) and mother of the prosecutrix Komalbai (PW-3)
clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they did not
remember prosecutrix's date of birth. In the medical
examination report also it is mentioned that secondary
sexual characters of prosecutrix are well developed. In these
circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court,
learned trial court after evaluating all the evidence found
that applicant was major at the time of incident, therefore,
in these circumstances learned trial court did not commit
any mistake in holding that prosecutrix was major at the
time of incident. From the statement of prosecutrix it
appears that she went with non-applicant from Dhar to
Dhamnod, Dhamnod to Indore and Indore to Shirdi by bus.
She is a consenting party and went with the non-applicant.
So learned trial court also did not commit any mistake in
acquitting the non-applicant from the charge under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Hence, the petition
is hereby rejected.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1062/2006
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.499/2006
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1077/2005
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.476/2014
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.444/2008
27.03.2017
None for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy.

Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.466/2015
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.401/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.A.No.296/2016 on 28.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.2403/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.A.No.296/2016 on 28.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.4072/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays
for four weeks' time to verify the factum of death of
respondent No.2 Sohrab.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.296/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays
for four weeks' time to verify the factum of death of
respondent No.2 Sohrab.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 28.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.582/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time
to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed on 04.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.842/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with
M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.6879/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with
M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.832/2016
27.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with
M.Cr.C.No.8215/2016 on 10.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.8215/2016
27.03.2017

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the applicant/State.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Respondent No.2 has not been served.
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of
arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to
secure presence of the respondent No.2 Rahil before this
court.

Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.A.No.832/2016 on 10.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.6375/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the
petitioners as Public Interest Litigation for issuance of an
appropriate writ for quashment of order dated 09.11.2015
passed by the M.P. Wakf Board by which the Executive
Officer M.P. Wakf Board has directed for removal of
encroachment and also for execution of judgment and
decree passed in Civil Suit No.38-A/2000. A prayer has
also been made for declaring the provisions of Wakf Act,
1995 as unconstitutional. Further prayer has been made
that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and Sections 4, 5,
6 and Section 40, 83, 85, 88 and 104 be declared as
unconstitutional.

The facts of the case reveal that a Civil Suit (Civil
Suit No.27/08) is decided by the M.P. State Wakf
Tribunal, Bhopal in respect of land bearing Survey
No.1262, 1263 rakba 0.083 Are 1265, 1269, 1270 rakba
0.784 Are 1272 rakba 0.784 Are 1273 rakba 0.187 Are
1276 rakba 0.010 Are 1277 rakba 0.125 Are 1855/1 rakba
0.293 Are 1858/01 rakba 0.084 Are and 2001 rakba 0.596
Are situated in Village Susner and judgment and decree
passed in the Civil Suit holding the property as Wakf
property.

2. The judgment and decree passed by the Wakf
Tribunal has not been set aside and earlier also Public
Interest Litigation was preferred i.e. Writ Petition
No.629/2013 (PIL) and this court has passed the
following order :-

"In this case, though the
petitioners have challenged various
provisions of the Wakf Act as ultravires,
but it appears that the litigation which was
initiated before the Wakf Tribunal had
reached to finality in which there is an
order of demolition of the buildings. But
the buildings are Government Hospital and
Government School for the public and
because of the orders passed by the Wakf
Tribunal, these are to be demolished. This
public interest litigation has been filed by
the petitioners who were not party before
the Tribunal.

During course of hearing, we
asked from Shri Bohra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.6 whether
respondent No.6 will be satisfied if some
alternative land in lieu of the land which is
occupied by the hospital and school is
given to respondent No.6 by the State
Government, so that the Government
hospital and school buildings can be saved.
Shri Bohra, learned counsel for respondent
No.6 prays four weeks time to seek
instructions from the respondent No.6 in
this regard.

Prayer is allowed.

Learned counsel for petitioners
also submitted that in case the Government
does not agree to give the land in lieu of
the aforesaid land, petitioners may be
allowed sometime to offer some alternative
land to respondent No.6 in lieu of the
aforesaid land. This aspect will be
considered on next date of hearing.

Be listed for hearing on
24.6.2013.

Till next date of hearing, it is
directed that respondents shall not
demolish the buildings namely Middle
School and Veterinary Hospital, both of
Government and shall maintain status-quo
as on today. "

3. The aforesaid PIL was finally dismissed in
default . However, the facts remained that the judgment
and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal has not been set
aside and now a second similar PIL has been filed stating
that a large number of Govt. Hospitals and Govt.
Schools and other Govt. buildings are existing in the
Wakf property and , therefore, the order passed by the
Wakf Tribunal which is in execution of judgment and
decree be set aside and some alternative land be given to
the Wakf Board.

4. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 15.12.2016 this
court has stayed all demolition activities, and the State
Govt. was directed to inform whether they have made
any alternative arrangement or not for shifting the Govt.
schools, which are situated over the wakf property and
also an opportunity was given to inform this court in
respect of allotment of alternative similar land before
demolition by the Wakf Board. It is really unfortunate
that inspite of similar opportunity granted on 03.05.2013
passed in WP No.629/2013 not an inch of land is allotted
to the Wakf Board in lieu of the land over which Govt.
Schools, Govt. Colleges and other Govt. buildings are in
existence.

5. This court is of the considered opinion that the
judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal in a civil suit
cannot be set aside in the Writ Petition. There is a
procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code and
once there is a judgment and decree passed by the court
of competent authority, it is to be executed in accordance
with law. This court does not find any reason to entertain
the present Public Interest Litigation, the same is
accordingly dismissed. However, the State shall still be at
a liberty to offer alternative land to the Wakf Board of
equal dimension and if the same is offered before the
executing court, the executing court shall be free to pass
appropriate order with the consent of the parties.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.50/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.49/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.48/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.39/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.38/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.37/2016
23.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Let the matter be listed along with I.T.A.
No.36/2016 on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.36/2016
23.03.2017

Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of respondents No.5, 6 and 7. He prays for listing
of the matter on 04.05.2017 along with other connected
matters i.e. ITA No.37/16, ITA No.38/16, ITA No.39/16,
ITA No.48/16, ITA No.49/16 and ITA No.50/16.

Reply if any be filed before the next date of
hearing.

Let the matter be listed along with connected
matters as aforesaid on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
I.T.A. No.36/2016
23.03.2017

Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of respondents No.5, 6 and 7. He prays for listing
of the matter on 04.05.2017 along with other connected
matters i.e. ITA No.37/16, ITA No.38/16, ITA No.39/16,
ITA No.48/16, ITA No.49/16 and ITA No.50/16.

Reply if any be filed before the next date of
hearing.

Let the matter be listed along with connected
matters as aforesaid on 04.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.931/2004
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
As prayed, list the matter on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.555/2007
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on IA No.8541/2017, which is an application
for disposal of the case in motion hearing stage itself.

This court is of the considered opinion that as per
scheme of roster final hearing of this appeal is not possible
at motion hearing stage, therefore, IA No.8541/2017 is
hereby rejected.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1774/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

List the matter on 02.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.1773/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

List the matter on 02.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.489/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.

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

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.487/2017
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Record be requisitioned.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.493/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.

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

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.492/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State on advance notice.

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

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.233/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days.

List the matter on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.7798/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Shri Umesh Gajankush learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State prays for time to file
reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 09.05.2017, as prayed.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.191/2005
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Service report is awaited.
List the appeal along with service report on
11.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.766/2010
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for listing
of the appeal on 05.05.2017.

Prayer is allowed.

List the appeal on 05.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.543/2011
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
By the letter dated 07.01.2017 Station House
Officer, P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam has
informed that appellant No.2 Babulal S/o Sukhram
Bairagi is no more.

In the light of the aforesaid report received from
the S.H.O., P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam,
appeal stands abated to the extent only against appellant
No.2 Babulal is concerned.

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to
delete the name of appellant No.2 Babulal from appeal
memo.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.372/2015
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

List the matter on 10.04.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.926/2015
20.03.2017

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the appellant/State.

Service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest
issued against respondent No.2 Suresh not received as yet.

List the matter along with service report on
03.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A. No.124/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

List the matter on 21.03.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.169/2016
20.03.2017

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the appellant/State.

Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the
respondent No.1 Surya @ Suresh for securing his presence
before this court on 09.05.2017 and also issue notice to his
surety as to why the surety amount may not be forfeited.

List the matter on 09.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1616/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 30.03.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C. No.12848/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State prays
for adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 11.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
A.R.No.3/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the applicants/State.

Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of
IA No.1762/2017 IA No.1763/17on payment of process
fee within 7 days.

Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 15.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.A.No.151/2017
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
adjournment.

Case is adjourned.

List the matter on 03.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.398/2017
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two
weeks' time to do necessary amendments.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 11.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1131/2017
20.03.2017

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the applicant/State.

Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of
IA No.1897/2017on payment of process fee within 7 days.

Record be requisitioned.
List the matter on 12.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2754/2017
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks four weeks'
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 02.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.5407/2015
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
adjournment.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 10.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.7496/2016
20.03.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three
weeks' time to file rejoinder.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 09.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.248/2017
13.02.2017

Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State on advance notice.

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

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1462/2017
13.02.2017

Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondent/CBI.

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

List the matter on 06.03.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11292/2016
13.02.2017

Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report is awaited.
List the matter along with service report on
04.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.6914/2014
13.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the Union of India prays for
four weeks' time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 20.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
VATA No.4/2016
13.02.2017

Ms. Preeti Waghmare, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State prays for
two weeks' time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 27.03.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P.No.8482/2016
13.02.2017

Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State prays for
four weeks' time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List the matter on 08.05.2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
T.R.No.20/2016
13.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
List the matter on 16.03.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1425/2017
10.02.2017

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the applicant/State.

Let the defects be cured within four weeks.
List the matter on 05.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.229/2017
10.02.2017

Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.1039/2017, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section
5 of the Limitation Act.

The appeal is barred by 25 days.
It has been stated that appellant is an illiterate
person and could not contact his counsel in time, therefore,
he was not able to file the appeal within time limit.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.1039/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal
is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for for consideration of IA
No.1040/2017 on 05.04.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.52/2017
10.02.2017

Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.1054/2017, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section
5 of the Limitation Act.

The appeal is barred by one day.
It has been stated that appellant is a poor person
and he is in jail and there is no other responsible member in
his family, therefore, he was not able to file the appeal
within time.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.1054/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal
is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2703/2016
10.02.2017

Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is
granted two weeks time to cure the defect.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days.

List the matter on 15.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1033/2013
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for listing
of the matter on 08.05.2017.

Prayer is allowed.

List the appeal on 08.05.2017, as prayed.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.57/2008
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Appellant Kailashchandra Vyas is present in person
before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.1092/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 06.02.2017.

It has been stated that the appellant was not well in
those days, therefore, he was not able to appear before the
Registry of this Court.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Kailashchandra Vyas on 06.02.2017 is
hereby condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 08.08.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1575/2017
10.02.2017

Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondent for consideration of
IA No.1112/2017on payment of process fee within 7 days.

Office is directed to call for the record.
List the matter on 03.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1496/2017
10.02.2017

Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days.

Office is directed to call for the record.
List the matter on 08.05.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.239/2017
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.237/2017
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.234/2017
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.231/2017
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Office is directed to call for the record.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.754/2017
10.02.2017

Parties through their counsel.
Shri Choudhary accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2.

Let copy of the Writ Petition be handed over to
Shri Choudhary during the course of the day.

Shri Choudhary, counsel for the respondents
No.1 2 prays for time to seek instructions and to file
reply of the petition.

Prayer is allowed.

He is granted two weeks' time to file reply and
to seek instructions.

List the matter on 20.02.2017. Meanwhile,
process fee be paid for issuance of notice to respondents
No.3 and 4 during the course of the day.

List along with WP No.621/17, WP No.8608/16
and WP No.7942/16 on 22.02.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
W.P. No.702/2017
08.02.2017

Shri Abhinav P. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for
the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
listing of the matter on 22.02.2017.

List along with WP No.621/17, WP No.8608/16
and WP No.7942/16 on 22.02.2017.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns

Cr.A.No.694/05, Cr.A.No.766/05 Cr.A.No.932/05
16.02.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri ........, learned counsel for the appellant .......
Shri ........, learned counsel for the appellant .......
Shri ........., learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

This common order shall govern the disposal
of Cr.A.No.694/05, Cr.A.No.766/05 and Cr.A.No.932/05.

[2] As per prosecution story, on 23.01.2003, at
about 11.00 a.m., when complainant Mehmood was at
home situated at Village Mahukhedi, P.S. Bherugarh
deceased Anwar came at his residence and stated that
accused appellant Mangu Mali, who has also got
agriculture field nearby the land of Anwar did not allow
him (Anwar) to get Holend machine which gave rise to
some dispute and it is told by Anwar to the complainant
Mehmood that he was slapped by said Mangu. Deceased
Anwar when had gone to Mehmood his brother Amjad was
also with him. After hearing Anwar, Mehmood
(complainant) suggested to make Mangu (accused) to
understand the real position and in that process it is said
that the complainant Mehmood with his brother Ayyub,
Akram, Balli @ Sharif, Anwar and Amjad proceeded to the
field of Mangu (accused) situated in Village Mahukhedi by
motorcycle. After having reached near the field of Mangu,
they left the motorcycle there and proceeded further on
foot, suddenly the accused Mangu, Rakya, Ramesh and
Mohan came there who were armed with deadly weapon
like sword, dhariya, axe and gun also.

[3] Accused Mohan shouted ^^Bgjks eknjpksn]
dgka tkrs gks** and tried to fire the gun on him, then
Mehmood and other associate Anwar etc. in order to save
themselves tried to run away from there, but they were
obstructed by Bhanwarsingh and his son Bhagwansingh,
Mukesh, Mahesh and Madan, who also were armed with
weapon like sword and axe. They shouting that Anwar and
other be led to death, thereafter accused Ramesh gave a
blow by axe causing injury on the neck of Amjad. Accused
Madan also gave an axe blow on Balli @ Sharif causing
injury on his hands. Accused Mangu gave blow by sword
on the head of Balli. After sustaining injuries Amjad and
Balli fell on earth then accused Bhanwarsingh and his son
started beating by sword to Anwar, who also fell down.
Akram (complainant) himself and Ayyub tried to save them
as they were at a distance. They raised voice to rescue him
and thereupon all accused applicants returned back to
Village Mahuakhedi. Injured (Amjad, Balli and Anwer)
were brought to the Village Panbadodiya on motorcycle
and thereafter they were taken to hospital at Ujjain in a
tractor. In the hospital Doctor declared Amjad as dead. On
that Mehmood lodged the report (Ex.P/22) Dehati Nalishi
in Police Station Bherugarh, Ujjain regarding incident.
After writing Dehati Nalishi he sent it to Police Station
Bherugarh where on the basis of that Dehati Nalishi Crime
No.23/04 was registered for the offence under Section 147,
148, 149, 307 and 302 of the IPC and matter was
investigated into by ................. During investigation
police got conducted postmortem of deceased Anwar Khan.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8475/2016
17.02.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
the applicant/State.

Shri K.C.Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent.

This application has been filed under Section
378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against
the judgment of acquittal dated 12.05.2016 passed by the
Special Judge, District Barwani in Special Case
No.19/2015, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the
accused/respondent from the charges under Section
376(1), 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
[2] As per prosecution story, on the night of
19.05.2015 at Village Dhanora, P.S. Anjad prosecutrix was
sleeping along with her daughter Ranjana in the courtyard
of her house. Her brother-in-law and sister-in-law were also
sleeping in front house. Her husband had gone to Village
Brahmangaon to attend a marriage. At 11.00 p.m.,
respondent/accused came there, shut her mouth and
threatened to kill her daughter if she shouted and raped the
prosecutrix and then ran away from there. On hearing the
shouting of prosecutrix her brother-in-law Mahesh came
there. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Mahesh. On
26.05.2015, when her husband Kaluram returned from the
marriage, she narrated the incident to him and lodged the
FIR in Police Station Anjad. From the FIR Crime
No.123/2015 was registered for the offence under Sections
376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the
respondent/accused. After investigation police filed the
charge-sheet before the court on that charge-sheet Special
ST No.19/15 was registered. Special judge after framing the
charge under section 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section
3(2)(5) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act tried the
respondent/accused. However, after trial the special judge
acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid
charges. Being aggrieved from the judgment, applicant filed
this application.

[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
from the statement of prosecutrix it is clearly proved that
respondent/accused committed rape with prosecutrix. Her
statement is also corroborated by the statement of Mahesh
(PW-4) and Kaluram (PW-5). Learned trial court without
appreciating their statements wrongly acquitted the
respondent/accused.

[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that trial court after averting all the evidence rightly
acquitted the accused from the aforesaid charges and prayed
for rejection of application.

[5] We have gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the parties. The alleged
incident is said to have occurred on 19.05.2015 while
prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 27.05.2015. There is no
proper explanation regarding delay of 8 days in lodging
FIR. As per prosecution story, at the time of incident
prosecutrix was sleeping with her three year old daughter
Ranjana. Even her brother-in-law and sister-in-law were
also sleeping in the courtyard of the house. It seems
unlikely that respondent/accused committed rape with the
complainant against her will and her daughter did not wake
up or shout. According to the medical report, no injury was
found on the body of the prosecutrix. It appeared that
Learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence
rightly acquitted the accused from the aforesaid charges. In
the considered opinion of this court, there is no need to
interfere in that judgement. Hence, the application is hereby
rejected.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.8475/2016 stands
disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.128/2016
13.02.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri C.L.Yadav, learned senior counsel with Shri
O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant Suresh
Verma.

Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.8783/2016, which is First
application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by
appellant Suresh Verma for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.

Appellant Suresh Verma has been convicted
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one
year's RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
learned trial court wrongly found guilty the appellant for
offence under Section 302 of IPC and that there is no direct
evidence against the appellant. The conviction of the
appellant is solely based on dying declaration (Ex.P/20)
recorded by Ajeet Kumar Shrivastava (PW-16), Nayab
Tehsildar. From the evidence of prosecution it is clear that
dying declaration (Ex.P/20) is false and fabricated. There is
no record of this document that how this document came
into possession of the Investigating Officer or in the case
diary. It is also clear from the medical evidence that
deceased Savita received 100% burn injuries and looking to
her condition it was not possible to record her dying
declaration. There is also no corroboration of the dying
declaration with other independent evidence. Hearing of the
appeal will take time, therefore, appellant prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer and submitted that from the dying declaration of
deceased Savita wife of appellant it is clear that appellant
set fire on her after pouring kerosene, due to which she
died. At the time of incident Savita was pregnant and she
died due to burn injuries sustained by her in the incident.
Learned trial court rightly convicted the accused. Learned
counsel for the respondent prays for rejection of the
application.

Although learned trial court only on the basis of
dying declaration of deceased Savita found appellant guilty
under Section 302 of the IPC but conviction can be based
solely on the dying declaration if it is reliable. It is clear
from the statement of Ajit Kumar Shrivastava (PW-16),
who is an independent witness and who recorded the dying
declaration of deceased Savita that Savita clearly stated to
him that appellant set fire on her after pouring kerosene. Dr.
Ashvi Kunjan (PW-17) also stated that he certified dying
declaration (Ex.P/20) that deceased was in fit condition to
give statement.

Mansingh Takur (PW-18), who investigated the
crime clearly stated that S.I. Kaul the then A.S.I., Psolice
Station Sendhwa inquired the merg No.4 and 5/10. He
handed over his report, other documents and dying
declaration of deceased Savita. Even Manoj Shinde
(PW-11) also stated that on 24.03.2010 in hospital Savita
told him that appellant set her on fire after pouring
kerosene. So it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the
application is rejected.

The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let
the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns

Cr.A.No.1258/2015 and Cr.A.No.1308/2015
13.02.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
Vinod Chouhan.

Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
appellant Kundan Ajmera.

Shri Kshitiz Vyas, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
objector.

This common order shall govern the disposal of IA
No.9332/16 (in Cr.A.No.1258/15) and IA No.9758/16 (in
Cr.A.No.1308/15).

Heard on I.A.No.9332/2016, which is First
application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant
Vinod Chouhan for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.

Also heard on I.A.No.9758/2016, which is Second
application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant
Kundan Ajmera for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.

Appellants Vinod Chouhan and Kundan Ajmera
have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further imprisonment for six months and Vinod Chouhan has
also been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(A)/27 of Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

As per prosecution story, on 04.11.2013, at about
7.00 p.m., deceased Sunil went to Katvadwala field situated
on border of Village Padlya and Village Delmi along with
Vinod and Kundan for cultivating the field taking tractor of
Surendra Thakur. At that time Shailendra also went with
Sunil but Vinod and Kundan stopped him. When Surendra
and his family was going to sleep at about 10.30 p.m. Vinod
and Kundan came to his house along with injured Sunil and
said that Sunil sustained gunshot injury. When complainant
Shailendra Thakur inquired the appellants as to how Sunil
sustained bullet injury, they could not explain and tried to
misguide him. There is a dispute between the appellants and
deceased Sunil regarding land so appellants murdered Sunil.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
there is no eye witness of the incident. The FIR filed is also
belated. The weapon was seized from the tool-box of the
Tractor of Surendra Thakur (PW-2), who is maternal uncle of
deceased Sunil. Had the present appellants killed deceased
Sunil, they would have easily escaped from the spot itself but
as per prosecution story appellants brought deceased Sunil to
the house of Surendra Thakur(PW-2), then went to the
hospital with deceased Sunil and complainant Surendra and
they had been there for more than 12 hours and on the next
day Police arrested them. Learned trial court without
considering the above fact and as to the fact that weapon
which has been allegedly seized from the possession of the
present appellant Vinod is not the same weapon which has
been examined by the Ballistic Expert of F.S.L., Sagar. The
Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid
offence. Hearing of the appeals will take time, therefore,
appellants pray for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the State as well as objector
oppose the prayer and submitted that from the prosecution
evidence it is clear that appellants Vinod Chouhan and
Kundan Ajmera were last seen with deceased Sunil and from
the Ballistic Expert's report it is clear that Sunil sustained
injury by the weapon recovered on the information of
appellant Vinod, therefore, learned trial court has not
committed any mistake to convict the appellants for the
offence under Section 302 of the IPC and prayed for rejection
of their application.

From the prosecution evidence it is clear that
appellants were last seen with deceased Sunil and Sunil died
due to gunshot injury and it also appeared from the
prosecution evidence that weapon (katta) was recovered from
the information received from Vinod. There is no clarification
given by appellants, who were with Sunil at the time of
incident regarding how Sunil got injured by fire arm. So, in
these circumstances, it is not appropriate to release the
appellants on bail. Hence, the applications for suspension of
sentence are rejected.

The appeals are already admitted, therefore, let
the appeals be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns

Criminal Revision No.1422/2015
03.02.2017
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on
behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Heard finally at motion stage.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the

order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the First Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in

M.Cr.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application

of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and

directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as

maintenance to respondent.

[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed

an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting

maintenance from the applicant before the trial court

averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.

Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.03.2008.

But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his

family members was not good with her. After marriage she

lived with her husband only for one half year . Later
applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her

maternal home and never recalled her from there. Applicant

and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for

taking her back. Aggrieved by such behaviour of the

applicant and his family members respondent filed a

petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of

conjugal rights. Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's

petition. In compliance of that order applicant took the

respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his

behaviour with the respondent remained same but after

sometime he left the respondent at her parental house. Then

respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police

Station Malharganj. On the report Crime No.251/2013 was

registered, which is already pending against the applicant.

Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain

herself. Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land

situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from

which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. Applicant

is also having business of selling milk and earns

Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent,

but has refused to maintain the respondent without any
sufficient cause. So, the applicant is directed to pay

Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.

[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and

denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him

and averted that family members of the respondent

solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant

deceiving the fact that she is handicapped . Also, at the time

of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage

with respondent is void. Applicant never demanded any

dowry and never harassed the respondent. Respondent

made false allegation in this regard in her application.

Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private

company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to

maintain herself, while applicant earns only

Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain

respondent and prays for rejection of application.

[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of

both the parties allowed the application of respondent and

directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as

maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a

legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain

herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not
maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.

[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order

applicant filed this revision.

[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted

that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly

closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the

respondent due to which because applicant was debarred

from his right. It is also proved from the evidence that

respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the

family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of

respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent

is handicapped. Since applicant was minor at the time of

marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void.

In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim

maintenance. Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the

evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to

maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in

10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns

Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum. Trial Court without

appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per

month maintenance.

[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly

awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. There is no need for

interference in that order and pray for rejection of the

petition.

[8] The court perused the record and arguments put

forth by the parties. It appeared from the record that learned

Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of

applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same

time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014

respondent and her brother was present in the court for

giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine.

On that Trial Court fixed next date of evidence on

22.11.2014. On that date again applicant sought time for

evidence of respondent and her brother Pradeep, then

learned Trial Court fixed next date as 18.02.2015. On that

date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the

respondent whereupon trial court gave one more

opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed

for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time

to cross-examine the respondent. Then Trial Court closed

the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.

Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant
did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not

commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-

examine the respondent.

[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the

respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him

deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so

marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct.

Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage

respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of

respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with

applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped

then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the

marriage void on that ground then and there.

[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of

marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is

void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor

is not void. It is not the case of applicant that he after

attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the

marriage on that ground. So it is clearly proved that

respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant.

[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage

she lived with the applicant for three years but after that
applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her

maternal home and never recalled her back. Then she filed

the petition before the Family Court. On the order of

Family Court applicant took her but after one half year

applicant again left her in her parental home. Since then

respondent is living with her father. The statement of

respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep

(PW-2). Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra

with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant

as his wife. Applicant himself in his cross-examination

clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent

with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to

keep respondent with him.

[12] Respondent also deposed that she is

handicapped and she has no earning. Although applicant

stated that respondent teaches children and also does

sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but

respondent clearly denied this fact. Applicant did not

produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent

teaches children and also does sewing work and earns

Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.

[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a
legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain

herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but

has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause. In

these circumstances respondent is entitled to get

maintenance from the applicant.

[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is

concerned. It appears from the record that learned trial court

on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of

agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is

having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5

that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land

mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni. So the maintenance

awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on

the higher side. It is appropriate to reduce the amount of

maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly,

the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount

awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from

Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Remaining conditions

of the trial court order shall remain the same.

The revision is disposed of accordingly.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.135/2016
06.02.2017
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.193/2016
06.02.2017
Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 8.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for
the respondent No.9/State.

Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.4/2017
06.02.2017
Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondents is not received as
yet.

Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.861/2016
06.02.2017
Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1232/2016
06.02.2017
Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondent is not received as
yet.

Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee
within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the
notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1527/2016
06.02.2017
Shri Nitin Bhati, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1597/2016
06.02.2017
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondent Raju Gangore is not
received as yet.

Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1605/2016
06.02.2017
Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1635/2016
06.02.2017
Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.

Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission
to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application
before the Juvenile Justice Board .

Prayer is accepted.

Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016
06.02.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.2/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 14.02.2016. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016
06.02.2017
Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns.

Civil Revision No.55/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Mehul Negi, learned counsel appears on
behalf of Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

Heard.

This Civil Revision has been filed under Section
115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated
05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar
whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the
amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the
Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in
the Nationalized Bank.

[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and
other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the
Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him
Rs.4,25,000/-. The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in
the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.

[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of
heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same.
Applicant is a labourer and she is unable to bear the cost of
repairing work from her income of labour work, so she
wants compensation of Rs.57,375/- which was kept by the
Tribunal in the Fixed Deposit in applicant's name.

[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her
application. Hence, the Revision is allowed. Learned
Tribunal is directed to pay an amount of Rs.57,375/- which
was being kept as Fixed Deposit in the name of applicant in
a Nationalized Bank. Applicant be permitted to withdraw
the amount which was deposited by the Tribunal in a
Nationalized Bank as Fixed Deposit upto 11.04.2018.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for
compliance. Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.134/2017
03.02.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after a week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.140/2017
03.02.2017
Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file copy of charge-sheet.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns.

M.Cr.C.No.142/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.809/2015
03.02.2017
Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns.

Cr.R.No.172/2016
03.02.2017
None present for the petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

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

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.873/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to place the service report on the
next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.351/2016
03.02.2017
Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant Dinesh has died.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to verify the factum of death of applicant Dinesh.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.74/2015
03.02.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns.

Cr.R.No.1493/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an
application for condonation of delay in filing the revision
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The revision is barred by 180 days.
After due consideration, application (IA
No.10593/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the
revision is hereby condoned.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of
hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.37/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.269/2017, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

The revision is barred by 417 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is in jail, therefore, he could not file the revision
in time.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.269/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision
is hereby condoned.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on
17.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1620/2016
03.02.2017
Shri S.D.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1995/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with record after
four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.56/2017
03.02.2017
Shri R.S.Bais, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.52/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Jayprakash Kore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.50/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Jayprakash Kore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.74/2017
03.02.2017
Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after a week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.704/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant/State.

None present for the respondent, even after
service of notice.

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

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.583/2017
03.02.2017
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns.

F.A.No.682/2015
03.02.2017
Shri K.L.Hardia, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Cr.R.No.915/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1187/2016
03.02.2017
Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1227/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1836/2016
03.02.2017
Shri G.S.Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before
the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1950/2016
03.02.2017
None present for the petitioner.
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.

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

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4708/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12153/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the
intervener.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file reply of IA No.10793/2016.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12829/2016
03.02.2017
Shri Nandlal Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
file copy of necessary documents on the next date of
hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.5/2017
03.02.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after the record is
received.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.120/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Shri K.Malviya, learned counsel for the
complainant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.264/2017
03.02.2017
Shri R.C.Nihore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.445/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file copy of documents.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks along
with the documents, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.969/2017
03.02.2017
Shri Abhijit Dubey, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1211/2009
03.02.2017
Shri Shri M.Negi, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Heard on IA No.639/2017, which is an
application to dispense with service to respondent No.5.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
by way of present appeal, the appellant is not challenging
their liability but is challenging false implication of the
the insured vehicle in the alleged incident, therefore, the
respondent No.5, who is owner of the vehicle is not
required for fair disposal of the present appeal. So, notice
to the respondent No.5 kindly be dispensed with.

After due consideration, application is allowed.
Service of notice to respondent No.5 be dispensed with,
with the risk of the appellant.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.765/2014
03.02.2017
Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
mediation is failed.

Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks along
with the record, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6110/2016
02.02.2017
Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Respondent Smt. Amita Brahmo is present in
person.

Respondent wants time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.6/2015
02.02.2017
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - petitioner present in
person.

Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

Shri Zafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the
respondents No.5 and 6.

None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even
after service of notice.

Petitioner seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.793/2016
02.02.2017
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is
present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four
weeks time to file reply.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks along
with service report of respondents No.1 and 2.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.226/2012
02.02.2017
None for the appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety.
Service report of perpetual warrant and notice of
surety not received as yet.

Office is directed to list the matter after two
weeks along with the report.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.663/2013
02.02.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1115/2016
01.02.2017
Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant
No.3 Abid.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an
application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant Abid has been convicted under
Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven
years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.

According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016,
at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju
(PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock
cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim
armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed
with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique
armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal
with their weapons with an intention to kill them.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant has been falsely implicated. Since co-accused
Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail
by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case,
therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to
get bail. Hence application for suspension of sentence be
allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and
other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida
(PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present
on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along
with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.

This Court has carefully gone through the case
and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments
put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.

The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to
other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this
court. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye
witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the
spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun
in his legs. Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses
Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have
clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot
armed with gun. He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with
other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed
that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal. According to the
postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries
including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the
appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.

The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the
appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(S.C.Sharma) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
ns
M.A.No.2134/2016
01.02.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4.

Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3228/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
the applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time
to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9509/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
the applicant/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time
to cure the defects as pointed out by the office.

Prayer is allowed.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.137/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

The appeal is barred by 2,283 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is in jail, therefore, he could not file the appeal in
time.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.697/2017) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal
is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due
course.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.183/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Heard on IA No.657/2017, which is an application
under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC for giving
time to pay court court fees.

After due consideration, prayer is accepted.
Applicant is given two months time to pay court fees.

Let the matter be listed after two months.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.71/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.110/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Ashish Kanoongo, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.161/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Vijaywargiya, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before
the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1121/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.863/2005
01.02.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.

Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of
arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to
secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this
court.

Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.159/2015
01.02.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
produce the applicant Javed before this court.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1765/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.53/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Office is directed to call for the record positively
before the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed along with the record on
08.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.94/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to
cure the defect.

Prayer is accepted.

Office is directed after curing the defect record be
called.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.80/2017
01.02.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round.

In absence of learned counsel for the parties even
in the second round, case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016
01.02.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round.

In absence of learned counsel for the parties even
in the second round, case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.160/2006
01.02.2017
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final
hearing at motion stage, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8533/2015
01.02.2017
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission
to withdraw this petition.

Prayer is accepted.

Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record on
15.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.252/2015
01.02.2017
Shri Kailash Sajonia, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Applicant Mangal Prasad is present in person
before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.745/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of applicant on 12.01.2017.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Mangal Prasad on 12.01.2017 is
hereby condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1362/2016
01.02.2017
Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1175/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Sachin Tenguriya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1409/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1560/2016
01.02.2017
Shri Ankit Keshwarwani, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.100/2017
01.02.2017
Ms. Kiran Gohar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before
the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed along with
Cr.A.No.74/2017 in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.101/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the
next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Office is also directed to place the matter before co-
ordinate Bench in the next week.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1080/2017
01.02.2017
Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.802/2013
01.02.2017
Shri M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicants.

As per office report, notice of respondent
received unserved with the endorsement that respondent
is not resided on a given address.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh
process fee with correct address within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week with
correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary
as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.8/2015
01.02.2017
Applicant Ravi Kumar Potdar present in person.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

Shri P.J.Mehta, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6.

Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.809/2015
01.02.2017
Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 03.02.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1267/2015
01.02.2017
Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion
stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1501/2015
01.02.2017
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri D.S.Panwar, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.

Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

Heard.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of
Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294
506 of IPC against the petitioner on the complaint of
respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.

[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016,
respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the
applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting
that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. Her
marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at
Sagar. But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and
his family members was not good with her. They demanded
dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty. Earlier also she
had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of
dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised
with the applicant and started residing with him and she
also got the case disposed of in compromise. But, applicant
again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry
and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got
divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house.
Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore.
On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73,
Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and
demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her. On
that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime
No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 506
of IPC was registered against the applicant. After
investigation charge-sheet was filed. Being aggrieved with
the FIR applicant has filed this application.

[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the
applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and
after some time she compromised with the applicant and
again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false
report against the applicant. Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha
herself tortured the applicant by her act. Earlier respondent
No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with
consent. But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the
FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce
papers signed from her. Applicant never came to Indore for
demanding money and never threatened respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 also lodged a report averting that
applicant came on 14.05.2016 in Indore at her parental
house and threatened her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- but
when respondent No.2 came to know that on that date
applicant was in Haidrabad (Telangana), she again filed a
false complaint on 22.05.2016. So, this report be quashed.

[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2
submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police
Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for
the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against
the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-
sheet has been filed by the Police before the court. So, at
this stage only on the averment of the applicant it cannot be
said that the report lodged by the respondent No.2 is false.

[5] This court gone through the record and
arguments put forth by both the counsels.

[6] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported
in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that :-

"The power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
The court will not be justified in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint.

The following categories of cases can be
stated by way of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised :

(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR
do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

[7] It appears from the record that after
investigation of the report lodged by the respondent No.2,
police found prima facie case against the applicant and filed
charge-sheet against the applicant so at this stage only on
the basis of document filed by the applicant along with this
application it cannot be assumed that respondent No.2 filed
the report just to harass the applicant based on false
allegation.

[8] Prima facie offence under Section 498A, 294
and 506 are clearly made out from the FIR, whether the
allegation made by the respondent No.2 in the report is true
or not? It cannot be ascertained at this stage as it requires
evidence, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. So the petition
is dismissed. Applicant is free to raise all objections before
the trial court at appropriate stage.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.156/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Bhimsen Soni, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Heard on IA No.520/2017, which is an application
under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC for giving
time to pay court court fees.

After due consideration, prayer is accepted.
Applicant is given two months time to pay court fees.

Let the matter be listed after two months.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.69/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
an appropriate application to condone the delay in filing of
petition.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.1070/2017
31.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.145/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record
on the point of admission.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.813/2016
31.01.2017
Dr.Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record
on the point of admission.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.261/2014
31.01.2017
Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
No.6.

None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even
after service of notice.

In absence of learned counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 5 matter is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1468/2013
31.01.2017
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Zafar Siddique, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even
after service of notice.

As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died.
Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to
take appropriate steps regarding death of respondents No.4
and 5.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1691/2016
31.01.2017
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.18/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record of MCC
No.12/2015, which is disposed of by the 29th Civil Judge,
Class-I, Indore by order dated 09.12.2016.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.79/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter and he wants a fix date for any
Wednesday.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10000/2014
31.01.2017
Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1298/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1561/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7174/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to
produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next
date of hearing.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9564/2016
31.01.2017
Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of
process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that the chargesheet has already been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next
date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.25/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Ajay Bhavsar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to
produce the copy of whole charge-sheet and to argue the
matter on the next date of hearing.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.87/2017
31.01.2017
Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on
the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 14.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.821/2012
31.01.2017
Shri D.S.Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
None present for the respondent even after service
of notice.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014
31.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.

Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed
to supply the copy of IA No.2472/2016 to the counsel for
the respondent during the course of the day.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9826/2014
31.01.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel appears on
behalf of Shri Pankaj Kumar Sohani, learned counsel for
the applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.

None appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks
time to file reply of IA No.286/2017.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.81/2015
31.01.2017
Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.

Heard.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR
bearing Crime No.570/2016 registered at Police Station
MIG Colony, Indore under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
120-B/34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.

[2] It is appeared from the record that on
11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to
verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar
in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that
complainant/respondent and petitioners No.1 to 3 admit that
they amicably settled their dispute. It appears from the
record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled
between the parties.

[3] It is true that some of the sections involved in
the case are non-compoundable offences, however, the
Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab
and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in which
Apex Court held that,
"The power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320
Cr.P.C. Cases where power to quash criminal
proceedings may be exercised where the
parties have settled their dispute, held,
depends on facts and circumstances of each
case. Before exercise of inherent quashment
power under Section 482, High Court must
have due regard to nature and gravity of the
crime and its societal impact. Offences
arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or like
transactions or offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family
disputes where the wrong is basically private
or personal in nature and parties have
resolved their entire dispute, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings."

[4] The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the
Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh
others V/s. State of Punjab others reported in (2014) 6
SCC 466, the pertinent observations of the Apex Court in
Narinder Singh (Supra) are 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:

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.

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.

Such a power is not to 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 the
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.

On the other hand, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominantly
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.

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.

Offences under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are 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 latter 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.

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 to 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."

[5] In the light of the aforesaid compromise which
is taken place between the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be
served by keeping the matter pending especially when the
grievance of the complainant has been satisfied by the
present applicant.

[6] Resultantly, the FIR at Crime No.570/2016
registered at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B/34 of IPC is hereby
quashed. Criminal proceedings also stands quashed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.29/2017
30.01.2017
Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.696/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also
directed to produce the case diary on the next date of
hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.719/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1223/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Office is directed to call for the record from the
Family Court, Neemuch.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks along
with the service report.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1380/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file
the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1551/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

As per office report, notice of respondent received
unserved.

Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay
fresh process fee within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11907/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12523/2016
30.01.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016
30.01.2017
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed. It is
made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12971/2016
30.01.2017
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the
complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. She is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13138/2016
30.01.2017
Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. She is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.21/2017
30.01.2017
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act positively before the
next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.22/2017
30.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.95/2017
30.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.196/2017
30.01.2017
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Record of the trial court is not received as yet.
Office is directed to issue reminder.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after receiving of the
record.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.477/2017
30.01.2017
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Record of the trial court is not received as yet.
Office is directed to call for the record.
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks along
with the record.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.971/2017
30.01.2017
Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1014/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Yogesh Markan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

As per office report, notice of respondent
received unserved in absence of correct address.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh
process fee with correct address within seven days.

On payment of fresh process fee within a week
with correct address, issue notice the respondent by
ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within
four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.98/2017
27.01.2017
Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.39/2016
27.01.2017
None present for the appellant even after service
of notice.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

In absence of learned counsel for the appellant
even in the second round, case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.196/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondent is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks along
with the service report.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.723/2016
27.01.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after six weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1287/2016
27.01.2017
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondent Naval Kishore
Mishra is not received as yet.

Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1540/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission
to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh
application under Sections 451 457 of Cr.P.C. before the
trial court regarding amount.

Prayer is accepted.

Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1376/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1635/2016
27.01.2017
Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.4262/2016
27.01.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016
27.01.2017
None present for the parties, even after second
round, therefore, the case is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for
condonation of delay in filing petition.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.

The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of
Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of
prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on
30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due
to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for
want of prosecution.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed
and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.

Office is directed to place the Cr.R. No.353/2016
for hearing on 16.02.2017.

M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1735/2016
27.01.2017
Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission
to withdraw this appeal.

Prayer is accepted.

Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13007/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission
to withdraw this application.

Prayer is accepted.

Thus, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.125/2017
27.01.2017
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.583/2017
27.01.2017
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.983/2016
27.01.2017
Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Let the matter be listed along with MCC
No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the
next week, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.672/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9147/2016
27.01.2017
Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 to 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9374/2016
27.01.2017
Shri D.K.Chhabra, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11171/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11618/2016
27.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.20/2017
27.01.2017
Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.106/2017
27.01.2017
Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.310/2017
27.01.2017
Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1226/2010
27.01.2017
Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Office is directed to call the report from the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding
appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of
Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the
sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?

Let the matter be listed after two weeks along
with the report.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014
27.01.2017
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent No.1/State.

None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7
8.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.776/2015
27.01.2017
Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall
be given.

Applicant is also directed to file the copy of
whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.981/2015
27.01.2017
Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1370/2015
27.01.2017
None present for the applicant.
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015
27.01.2017
Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the
applicant.

None present for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.3991/2015
27.01.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

None present for the respondent even after
service of notice.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1131/2016
25.01.2017
None present on behalf of the petitioner even
after service of notice.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

In the absence of counsel for the petitioner matter
is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9125/2014
25.01.2017
Shri S.L.Gwaliory, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell,
District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant
on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.165/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondents is not received as
yet.

Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2016.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1585/2016
25.01.2017
Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.
Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain
stayed till the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.224/2016
25.01.2017

Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015
25.01.2017
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.725/2016
25.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1234/2016
25.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to verify the papers produced by the applicant before the
next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.986/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Virendra Patel, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1303/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Rajmal Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1631/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2925/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.966/2001
25.01.2017
None present on behalf of the sole appellant
Rajesh.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

As per office report, non-bailable warrant of
appellant Rajesh is received unserved.

Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable
warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before
this court.

Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.349/2005
25.01.2017
Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he
does not want to press IA No.587/2017.

Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is
dismissed as withdrawn.

Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.2185/2008
25.01.2017
Shri M.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Service report is still awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter along with
the service report after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.151/2014
25.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.62/2015
25.01.2017
Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1527/2015
25.01.2017
Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.5/2016
25.01.2017
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Office is directed to send back the record of the
trial court.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.475/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

None present on behalf of the respondent even
after service of notice.

In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned.
Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.539/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.

As per office report, notice of respondent received
unserved.

Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay
fresh process fee within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1017/2016
25.01.2017
Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.1001/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant.

None for the respondent No.2, even after service of
notice.

Let the matter be listed along with FA
No.9982/2016 after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.595/2017
24.01.2017
Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.46/2017
24.01.2017
Shri K.L.Purohit, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.951/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1119/2016
24.01.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time
to file power on behalf of the respondent and also to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1580/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondent is awaited.
Office is directed to place the service report along
with the record on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2016.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016
24.01.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri R.S.Dad, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file some documents.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016
24.01.2017
Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016
24.01.2017
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1322/2015
24.01.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for
the applicant.

As per office report, notice of respondents No.1
and 2 received unserved.

Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay
fresh process fee within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016
24.01.2017
Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file some documents.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.300/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for
the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
file necessary documents.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1133/2016
24.01.2017
Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri S.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record
after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the
applicant.

None present on behalf of the respondent.
In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter
is adjourned.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks. Office
is also directed to call for the record.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.85/2016
24.01.2017
Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
As per office report, notice issued to respondents
No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent
No.6 not received yet.

Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee
within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017.
Counsel for the applicant is free to service on
respondents by hamdast mode.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.460/2016
24.01.2017
Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant.

As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal
memo notice not issued to the respondents.

Petitioner is directed to produce the copy of
appeal memo within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.424/1997
24.01.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Report regarding juvenility is awaited.
Office is directed to issue reminder.
Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1460/2010
24.01.2017
Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

As per office report, non-bailable warrant of
appellant Mohammed Salim not received yet.

Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable
warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed
Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety
as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.

Let the matter be listed on 16.03.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1025/2015
24.01.2017
Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant
Naushad received unserved. Again issue non-bailable
warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad
before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to
why surety amount may not be forfeited.

Let the matter be listed on 16.03.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1497/2015
24.01.2017
Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.488/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.

Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
file reply of IA No.3466/2016.

By way of last indulgence, time is given.
Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.717/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.

Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to
cure the defect.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.978/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.

Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's
time to pay process fee.

Prayer is accepted.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.1761/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the
appellant.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7493/2015
24.01.2017
Shri Paresh Sarraf, learned counsel for the
applicant.

As per office report, notice of respondent
received unserved in absence of correct address.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh
process fee with correct address within seven days.

On payment of process fee within a week with
correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary
as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1432/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1634/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is
also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-
A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.2/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 30.01.2017.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.128/2017
24.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is also
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.849/2017
24.01.2017
Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter. He is directed to file the copy of whole
charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.936/2016
24.01.2017
Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application
for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of
CPC. Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was
filed as "Civil First Appeal" under Order 41 read with
Section 96 of CPC. It should have been filed as a
"Miscellaneous Appeal" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC.
So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous
Appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the
prayer.

After due consideration, application (IA
No.8480/2016) is allowed. Office is directed to register this
First Appeal as a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43
Rule 1(a) of CPC. Amendment be carried out within three
days.

Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.125/2017
24.01.2017
Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Office is directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed along with the record after
two weeks. It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri
Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1135/2015
24.01.2017
Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016
24.01.2017
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.10/State.

The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of
M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for
want of prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due
to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by
the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide
mistake the counsel for the petitioner could not appear at
the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was
dismissed for want of prosecution.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
petition is allowed. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed
and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original
position.

Office is directed to place the M.Cr.C.
No.11538/2015 for hearing on 03.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.279/2004
24.01.2017
Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Appellant Mohanlal is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.668/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 09.12.2016.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Mohanlal on 09.12.2016 is hereby
condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.422/2017
23.01.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available.

Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to
produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.206/2016
23.01.2017
Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.44/2017
23.01.2017
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.1493/2014
23.01.2017
Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the
appellant.

As per report, bailable warrant issued to the
respondent Suresh Mehta is returned unserved with a note
that respondent is not residing on the given address.

On payment of fresh process fee within a week
with correct address, issue bailable warrant the respondent,
returnable within four weeks.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.81/2017
23.01.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.58/2017
23.01.2017
Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits
that case diary is not available. He is directed to produce
the case diary on the next date of hearing. He is also
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016
23.01.2017
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1048/2016
23.01.2017
Shri N.M.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1604/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Service report of respondents is awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.104/2017
23.01.2017
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.110/2017
23.01.2017
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed
to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.622/2017
23.01.2017
Shri Neeraj Sarraf learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.776/2017
23.01.2017
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as
prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.3022/2011
23.01.2017
Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the
appellants.

Heard on IA No.5410/2016, which is an application
to extend the time to pay deficit court fees.

After due consideration, application is allowed.
One month's time is granted to pay remaining court
fees.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.510/2016
23.01.2017
Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1069/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final
hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the
parties.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.R.No.1408/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
applicant.

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

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.5644/2016
23.01.2017
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
applicants.

Shri C.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 06.02.2017.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.K.Asudani, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
given.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.Cr.C.No.11440/2016
23.01.2017
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.

Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.396/2014
23.01.2017
Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.5/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.454/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.566/2016
23.01.2017
Shri P.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Service report of respondents is awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC.No.726/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed in the next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.C.C.No.765/2016
23.01.2017
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.864/2016
23.01.2017
Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri K.C.Waghela, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to
argue the matter.

Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017. It is made
clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.201/2006
23.01.2017
Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and
for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable
warrant.

Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016
in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence
before the Registry of this Court on the said date.

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application,
application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on
05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non-
bailable warrant is recalled.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.746/2013
23.01.2017
Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

As per office report, notice of respondent No.1
received unserved in absence of correct address.

Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh
process fee with correct address.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.

Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after
service of notice, whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
M.A.No.2675/2013
23.01.2017
Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the
appellant.

None present on behalf of the respondent though
served.

The appeal is already admitted.
List for final hearing in due course.
I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
C.R.No.246/2015
23.01.2017
Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the
reply.

Prayer is accepted.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.482/2015
23.01.2017
Shri M.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Appellant Pappu Mansuri is present in person
before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.199/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 02.01.2017.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is
hereby condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.229/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Appellant Shahid is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.474/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 04.01.2017.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Shahid on 04.01.2017 is hereby
condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
Cr.A.No.293/2005
23.01.2017
Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Appellant Abdul is present in person before the
Court and he has been identified by his counsel.

Heard on IA No.303/2017, which is an application
for condonation of absence of appellant on 02.12.2016.

After due consideration, application is allowed and
absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby
condoned.

He is directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.475/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.

No one is present on behalf of proposed legal
representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of
notice. Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after
service of notice.

Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application
for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on
record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016,
which is an application for condonation of delay under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under
Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an
application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22
Rule 9 of CPC.

After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA
No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed. Applicant is
directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of
respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal
memo.

On payment of process fee within a week, issue
notice to the proposed legal representatives of respondent
No.1.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
MCC No.725/2016
23.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.

None present for the respondent.
Service report of respondents is awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith
the service report on the next date of hearing.

Let the matter be listed after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
F.A.No.936/2016
23.01.2017
Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the
copy of appeal to respondent No.1.

Let the matter be listed tomorrow i.e. 24.01.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
ns
CONC No.39/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.41/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.A No.41/2017
20.01.2017
Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.C.C. No.42/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.A No.84/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for
the appellant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.A No.125/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant
seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

Office is directed to call for the record.
List next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.A No.144/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of
PF within one week returnable within four weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
List after four weeks or after service of notice,
which ever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.A No.146/2017
20.01.2017
Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant.
As prayed by learned counsel for the
appellant, list next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.67/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.75/2017
20.01.2017
Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of
PF within one week returnable within four weeks.

Office is also directed to call for the record.
List after four weeks or after service of notice,
which ever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.A. No.109/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State submitted that case-diary is not available
today.

He is directed to produce case-diary before next
date of hearing.

List next week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.654/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant
Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017,
which is an application for stay.

Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant
has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the
learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the
cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC
and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants. It is
further submitted that this is a civil transaction and there is
no material for taking the cognizance under Section 420 of
IPC. He prays that the further proceedings before the trial
Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.

On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to
the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A.
No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.

Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the
non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants,
it be recalled.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for
compliance.

List on 13.02.2017.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.680/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on
payment of PF within one week returnable within
four weeks.

List after four weeks or after service of notice,
which ever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.698/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after one week.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.755/2017
20.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.78/2014
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks
two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CR. No.93/2016
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to
argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CR. No.100/2016
20.01.2017
Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent, even in second round.
In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is
adjourned.

List on 10.02.2017.

IR to continue till next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.214/2016
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the
respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.535/2016
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to
file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.539/2016
20.01.2017
None for the applicants.

Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the
respondent seeks time to file compliance report.

Prayer is allowed.

List after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.581/2016
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received
unserved with a note that they are not residing at given
address.

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two
weeks' time to file compliance order.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.628/2016
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file
reply.

Prayer is allowed.

List after two weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
CONC No.658/2016
20.01.2017
Shri A. Asudani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the
respondent seeks time to comply with the order.

Prayer is allowed.

List after three weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.4812/2015
20.01.2017
Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned counsel for the
respondent.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 21.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016
20.01.2017
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Service report of respondent No.2 is awaited.
Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith
the record before next date of hearing.

List on 03.02.2017.

IR to continue till next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for
respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
matter.

Counsel for the State is directed to peruse the status
report of the proceedings before next date of hearing.

List on 09.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016
20.01.2017
Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 14.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016
20.01.2017
Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of
charge-sheet.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 22.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.12381/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicant/State.

Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF
within 15 days returnable within six weeks.

Office is directed to call for the record.
List after four weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants
seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 17.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.29/2017
20.01.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for
respondent/State is directed to produce case-diary before
next date of hearing.

List the matter in due course.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.77/2017
20.01.2017
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Office is directed to call for the record before next
date of hearing.

List on 09.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
F.A No.123/2005
20.01.2017
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 seeks
time to file reply on I.A. No.4744/2013.

Prayer is allowed.

He is directed to file positively on next date of
hearing.

List on 03.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.A. No.513/2010
20.01.2017
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellant/State.

Heard on I.A. No.10099/2016, which is an
application for deleting name of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

After due consideration, application is allowed.
Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete
name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo.
Necessary amendment be incorporated within three
working days.

Office is directed to call for the record. Office is
also directed to send reminder.

List the matter in due course.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.2745/2013
20.01.2017
Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole
copy of charge-sheet before next date of hearing.

List on 28.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
matter.

Prayer is allowed.

It is made clear that no further adjournment will be
given.

List on 20.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.1384/2015
20.01.2017
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Notice issued on respondent received unserved
with the note that he is not residing on given address.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to pay
fresh PF within 15 days.

On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to
respondent, returnable within six weeks.

List after six weeks or after service of notice,
whichever is earlier.

IR to continue till next date of hearing.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015
20.01.2017
Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks time to argue the matter.

Prayer is allowed.

List on 31.01.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.44/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.

Counsel for the State is directed to produce case-
diary before next date of hearing.

List on 17.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.824/2016
20.01.2017
None for the applicant.

Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the
respondent.

In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is
adjourned.

List after four weeks.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.1029/2016
20.01.2017
None for the applicant.

As per office report, notice issued to respondent
received unserved.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF
within seven days.

On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent
within one week, returnable within four weeks.

Office is directed to call for the record.
List after four weeks or after service of notice
whichever is earlier.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi
Cr.R. No.1149/2016
20.01.2017
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.

None for respondent even after service of notice.
In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is
adjourned.

List on 08.02.2017.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Ravi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation