Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 161 to 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 173Nominal IndexShashikant Jatav v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 161But Singh Bhanwar v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 162Akhilesh Nimawat v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 163Rajendra Prasad Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 164Ajay Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 161 to 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 173
Nominal Index
- Shashikant Jatav v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 161
- But Singh Bhanwar v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 162
- Akhilesh Nimawat v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 163
- Rajendra Prasad Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 164
- Ajay Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 165
- Thaneshwar Gole v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 166
- Amarkant Singh Chouhan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 167
- Azam Sher Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 168
- Raman Gothi v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 169
- Kamal Kumar Rathi v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 170
- Samarth Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 171
- Dr Sajan Kurien Mathew v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 172
- Suresh Prasad Khare v State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 173
MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Journalist For Allegedly Extorting Money From Doctor
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the petition of a journalist seeking to quash the FIR concerning extortion allegations levelled by a private allopathy doctor, observing that the investigation was at a nascent stage and the journalist's prior criminal record makes quashing the proceedings premature or improper.
Case Title: Shashikant Jatav v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-34590-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 161
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing the petition of a government employee challenging premature repatriation to his parent department, observed that repatriation of a government employee to their parent department based on mere satisfaction of the competent authority is valid.
Case Title: But Singh Bhanwar v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.1494/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 162
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that terminating the services of an employee over allegations of disobedience or indiscipline without permitting him to adduce evidence in a properly constituted inquiry is legally impermissible, making such termination unsustainable.
Case Title: Akhilesh Nimawat v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.9914/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 163
Govt Cannot Interfere In Management Of Private Temples: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that the government cannot interfere in the management of a private temple.
It has thus directed all District Collectors to first examine the status of a temple, whether they are public or private, before imposing a Scheme of management on them.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-9139-2011
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 164
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to pay ₹10 Lakh in compensation to a businessman who was detained for 57 days after airport security equipment mistakenly identified his packets of branded Aamchur and Garam Masala powders as containing heroin and MDEA.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-17529-2011
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 165
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application seeking transfer of a petition to another court over apprehensions of judicial bias, observing that merely because a judicial order does not reflect or discuss certain arguments advanced by the party, it cannot be inferred that the presiding judge was biased or acted unfairly.
Case Title: Thaneshwar Gole v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-5303-2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 166
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a journalist accused of extorting money by allegedly threatening the Umri Toll Plaza administration with publication of fake news reports.
Case Title: Amarkant Singh Chouhan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-34586-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 167
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the termination of a guest faculty member of Government Women's Polytechnic College, who was removed from service for sending inappropriate messages to a female student and pressuring her to communicate.
Case Title: Azam Sher Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-27685-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 168
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation, Betul to ensure that the National Emblem removed from Itwari Bazar crossing during construction work is reinstalled with “proper respect and dignity.”
Case Title: Raman Gothi v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-14443-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 169
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has closed a batch of PILs concerning a passenger boat capsize at Bargi Dam on Narmada river in Jabalpur, following State's submission that a Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by a former high court judge has been constituted to probe the incident.
Case Title: Kamal Kumar Rathi v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-16479 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 170
Twisha Sharma's husband, Samarth Singh, who has been booked in an alleged case of dowry death, withdrew his anticipatory bail plea from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (May 22).
Case Title: Samarth Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC 24352 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 171
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the complaints under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, cannot be investigated or adjudicated by any parallel authority outside the framework of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or Local Complaints Committee (LCC).
Case Title: Dr Sajan Kurien Mathew v State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition no 1662 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 172
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an advocate who had appeared on behalf of his son in a criminal matter in which both were arrayed as accused, holding that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit a co-accused advocate from representing another accused.
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Khare v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR No. 5561 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 173