- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Madhya Pradesh High Court Quarterly...
Madhya Pradesh High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-90]
Sparsh Upadhyay
25 Jun 2022 3:18 PM GMT
![Madhya Pradesh High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-90]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/06/11/750x450_421551-madhya-pradesh-hc-quarterly-digest-january-to-march-2022.jpg "Madhya Pradesh High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-90]")
NOMINAL INDEX Gangaram S/o Shri Kanha Ji Versus Commissioner, Indore Division & another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 1 Kamla Bai and Others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 2 Jayesh Gurnani v. Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 3 Dr. Vijendra Dhanware & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
Gangaram S/o Shri Kanha Ji Versus Commissioner, Indore Division & another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 1
Kamla Bai and Others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 2
Jayesh Gurnani v. Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 3
Dr. Vijendra Dhanware & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 4
Hani Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 5
Saurabh & another v. State of M.P. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 6
AHMAD SAYEED QURESI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 7
Foti Rakabchand Jain through LRs Vs. Foti Ratanlal Jain through LRs 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 8
Special Police Establishment v. Umesh Tiwari and another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 9
IN RE. EXT. OF TIME SOUGHT BY ASJ DISTRICT DEWAS IN HON. CO. DT. 28/09/2021 PASSED IN MCRC 43884/2021 (MADHYA PRADESH) v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 10
Sukhendra Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 11
Dr Neha Padam v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 12
Aadil v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 13
Surajbhan Singh v. State of M.P. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 14
Cycle Yaatri Samooh and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 15
SURENDRA DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 16
Mamta Gupta vs. State of MP & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 17
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others v. M/s Tatpar Petroleum Centre 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 18
M/s Gayatri Project Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 19
Balli Chaudhary alias Rakesh v. State of MP 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 20
Guljar Khan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 21
L.N. Medical College & Research Centre v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 22
Laxmi Sagar w/o Kamal Kishore Sagar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 23
Dharmpal Singh Jadon & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 24
SMT. POONAM BHADORIYA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 25
Laxman Rao Vs. Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna and anr 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 26
ASHISH AGRAWAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 27
Rajlakshmi Foundation v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 28
Rahul Islam Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 29
Harish Chandra Hinunia v. Food Corporation Of India 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 30
Madhav Shrama v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 31
Subhash Chandra Vs Union Of India And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 32
Gagan Agrawal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP)33
Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 34
Smt. Krishna Prajapati v. State of M.P 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 35
Shobit Nigam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 36
Meena Devi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 37
Kallu Khan v. State of M.P. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 38
Purva Balke v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 39
Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another Vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. & others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 40
Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 41
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. PREMSINGH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 42
FAISAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 43
Mohanlal Patidar v. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr. and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 44
SANJAY SINGH BAGHEL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 45
STATE OF M.P. v. SUNNY KARARI 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 46
Suresh Upadhyay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 47
Anamika Tomar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 48
Shaikh Shahrukh v. Youth Congress Election Authority and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 49
Bandhavgarh Guides Association & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 50
Ichhashankar Vs. State of MP 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 51
Narendra Mishra v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Jabalpur (M.P.) 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 52
Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch and Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 53
Vikas Tiwari v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 54
Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 55
Jaya Chakravarti Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 56
In Re. Special Judge (Electricity Act) No.5, Indore 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 57
Bharti Meshram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 58
Sandeep Kumar Pathak & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 59
Greeshm Jain v. The state of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 60
Ajay Kori s and anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 61
Mohd. Adil Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 62
Himanshu @ Mintu Day V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 63
Dileep Kumar Yadav S/O Mohan Yadav V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 64
Vidhi ka Ulaghan Karne Wala Balak Versus State of M.P. & Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 65
Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of M.P.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 66
Pramod Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 67
Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68
Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 69
Ramdayal Charmkarr v State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 70
Siddhi Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 71
Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72
Pawan Kumar Jain V State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 73
People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Center and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.' 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 74
Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75
Deepali Jadhav V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77
Alka Sharma and anr. V. The state of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 78
Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79
Gadiya Sejal Ben V The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 80
Hiralal Dhurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 81
SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 82
Shivkumar Kushwaha V The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 83
Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84
Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85
Rajnish Kumar Tiwari V The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 86
Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87
Vishal Kushwaha v. Ragini Kushwaha 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 88
Private Paramedical Colleges Welfare Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 89
Pahalwan Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 90
JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER (Jan-Mar 2022)
Case Title - Gangaram S/o Shri Kanha Ji Versus Commissioner, Indore Division & another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 1
The High Court observed that it is the nature of the case and not the number of cases that should be taken into account for the purposes of initiating externment proceedings against a person intended to be externed from a particular area.
Importantly, underscoring that the purpose of initiation of externment proceedings is to restrain a person from committing another offence in the near future, the Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar further observed that the order of externment must be passed within the close proximity of the offences committed by the petitioner.
Dealing with a Habeas Corpus plea filed by family members of certain persons who were allegedly forced to work as bonded labourers in Maharashtra, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday directed for the registration of an FIR against two persons, accused of employing 17 persons as labourers without paying them wages.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat was dealing with the instant plea filed by Kamla Bai and Jamna Prasad Gond of Jabalpur district and Girwar and Laxman of Seoni district, who submitted before the Court that their family members were being forced to work as bonded labourers in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra.
Interpreting the provisions under Article 243-T of the Constitution, read with the procedure prescribed as per the state election laws, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the process of "Rotation of Wards" in Municipalities is mandatory and not up to the discretion of the state government.
Justice Subodh Abhayakar was essentially dealing with a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners against the gazetted notification issued by the state government dated 06.11.2020, publishing the list of Reserved Wards in Indore Municipal Area.
Case title - Dr. Vijendra Dhanware & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 4
The High Court has held that in the absence of specific categorization, Government Doctors and medical officers working in Civil and District Hospitals are also entitled to benefit of reservation meant for in-service doctors in the PG Medical Courses and the counseling to be conducted by the State Government.
This ruling has come from the Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Sharma while quashing the merit list prepared by the state government prior to the upcoming PG Medical Counselling, meant for in-service doctors, directing the State to Revise and extend the benefit to the Petitioners Doctors.
Case title - Hani Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 5
"Every girl being a citizen of India has a right to live her life peacefully and without any threat to her dignity and life," observed the Madhya Pradesh High Court as it refused to quash a POCSO Case based on a compromise between the 17-year-old victim and a man, accused of stalking and harassing her for two years.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia noted that it was a case where the applicant-accused was continuously stalking and harassing the victim and caught hold of her hand in a public place when she had come to her house for celebrating Deewali and therefore, refused to quash the case.
Case Title: Saurabh & another v. State of M.P. & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 6
The High Court has held that Registrar of Public Trust has no discretionary power under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951, to remove the existing Trustees and direct the Trust to conduct elections for the same. Justice Subodh Abhayankar was essentially dealing with a Writ Petition, wherein the Petitioners sought for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2021, passed by the Registrar of Public Trust, District Barwani, wherein two of the Trustees were removed from their post, and the Trust, namely Shri Digamber Jain Siddh Kshetra Bawangajaji, was directed to conduct elections for the post of Trustees.
Case title - AHMAD SAYEED QURESI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 7
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) plea filed against the recent decision of the Centre to rename Habibganj station (in Bhopal) after 18th Century Gond Queen, Rani Kamalapati.
The bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav also saddled the petitioner, Ahmad Sayeed Quresi with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- as it noted that it was a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigation.
Case Title: Foti Rakabchand Jain through LRs Vs. Foti Ratanlal Jain through LRs
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 8
Deciding a civil revision against the order of a civil court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that rejecting an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be illegal if the court sought for written statements of the defendant rather than deciding the same on averments in the plaint.
Justice Anil Verma observed,
"For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court."
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 9
The High Court (Jabalpur Bench) answered several significant questions related to Section 91 of CrPC which deals with Summons to produce documents or other things. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav examined as to when can an accused as also a victim, invoke this Section during a criminal proceedingānd came up with the following conclusion
An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the investigation. However, an accused can invoke Section 91 on and after the filing of the charge sheet. Section 91 can also be invoked by the other stakeholders i.e. victim and also the prosecution. The court can also invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. suo moto.
All the above invocation by any stakeholder is subject to satisfaction of the Court about desirability and necessity of the document sought to be produced.
Disposal of Case Not Our Agenda, Have To Ensure That Parties Get Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: IN RE. EXT. OF TIME SOUGHT BY ASJ DISTRICT DEWAS IN HON. CO. DT. 28/09/2021 PASSED IN MCRC 43884/2021 (MADHYA PRADESH) v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 10
Deciding two separate requests by trial court judges seeking extension of time to conclude the trials, the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that - "Even if there is a little bit of delay in the trial, it's alright. At the end of the trial the parties must feel, they must be convinced that justice has been done."
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Pranay Verma was essentially dealing with two review petitions collectively, wherein two trial court judges were seeking extension of time granted by the High Court vide two different orders to conclude the trials.
Case Title: Sukhendra Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 11
The High Court ordered enquiry against a Station House Officer (SHO) for not producing case diary in a case despite being repeatedly ordered to do so.
Justice Vivek Agarwal also took exception to the "lame excuse" given by the officer that the case diary could not be produced as he had forgotten about the same given his busy schedule.
"This explanation given by the Incharge Station House Officer Satish Mishra S/o.Santosh Mishra reveals that prima facie he is not fit to continue in police service because his memory is weak and he could not produce the case diary despite several reminders, which were sent from of the Office of the Advocate General..." the Bench observed.
Case Title: Dr Neha Padam v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 12
Amending one of the conditions for her bail, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, ordered the Applicant, a Medical Student, to tender her services biweekly, either at a District Hospital or a Community Health Centre.
The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with an application moved by the Applicant U/S 482 CRPC, to amend one of the conditions under which the Court had previously allowed her application for anticipatory bail.
The High Court (Indore Bench) observed that a Kazi can entertain a dispute and acts as a mediator to settle the dispute between the members of the Muslim community but he cannot adjudicate the dispute like a court and pass an order like a decree.
With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma noted that an order of the Kazi granting Talaq (divorce) by way of Khula has no legal sanctity and can simply be ignored.
Case Title: Surajbhan Singh v. State of M.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 14
A peculiar criminal appeal recently reached the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, where surprisingly the Trial Court had passed an "incomplete judgment" of conviction for the offence of Murder.
The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal noted that whereas the Appellant before it was on trial for murder of two, he was punished only on one count and there was no mention, whether of acquittal or of conviction, with respect to the second murder.
Noting that at some places the general public is using footpaths for the purpose of parking, putting the signing board, or for business purposes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that the public needs to be educated not to use the footpath and dedicated track for other purposes.
This assertion came from the Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma which was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to Indore Municipal Corporation and others to provide a dedicated way to the pedestrians, cyclists, and also the physically challenged persons by way of developing, designing and widening the roads in the city.
The High Court has said that merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is seized for the commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal further observed that the NDPS Act does not contain any bar regarding the grant of interim custody as contained in Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Case Title: Mamta Gupta vs. State of MP & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 17
The High Court has held that if prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged are satisfied, then criminal proceedings need not be quashed in a case involving encroachment upon Government land. The Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava further observed that criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.
What Constitutes 'Dispute' Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act? Madhya Pradesh High Court Explains
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others v. M/s Tatpar Petroleum Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 18
Surprised over the fact that the word 'Dispute' is not defined under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even though its object is to "resolve disputes" between rival parties, the High Court explained as to what may constitute a 'dispute' for the purpose of invocation of the provisions contained in the Act.
The division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, "for a dispute to arise there should exist an assertion/claim which is refuted by the other side."
Case title - M/s Gayatri Project Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 19
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that in the State, the dispute of 'works contract' could be raised before the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 alone, and in such disputes, the applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is barred.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav further ruled that if an arbitration award is passed with respect to 'work contract' disputes, then such an award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Case title - Balli Chaudhary alias Rakesh v. State of MP
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 20
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) recently observed that the opinion of a doctor is relevant evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but it can rarely take the place of substantive evidence and it cannot be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed thus as it dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by one Balli Chaudhary against the order of framing of charges agaisnt him under Sections 307, 34, and 452 of IPC.
Case Title: Guljar Khan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 21
Deciding a Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the constitutional right of major persons to stay together, either by way of marriage or live-in relationship.
Justice Nandita Dubey was essentially dealing with a petition moved by a husband who alleged that the parents of his wife have forcibly taken her to Banaras and have illegally detained her. The Petitioner submitted that he married his wife with her consent and that she willingly embraced Islam.
Case title - L.N. Medical College & Research Centre v. Union of India and others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 22
The High Court held that the National Medical Commission (NMC) cannot withhold the approval of any medical college on the ground that CBI probe on the admissions effected in the said medical college is pending against the Management and Trustees of the said Medical College. The bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Sharma was hearing a plea filed by petitioner institution L.N. Medical College & Research Centre, whose request for an increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 was turned down by the NMC on the ground that a CBI probe was pending against the Management and Trustees of the institution.
Case Title: Laxmi Sagar w/o Kamal Kishore Sagar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 23
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench recently held that a Municipal Commissioner was competent to issue the order of detention U/S 3(2) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act of 1980") even though she was temporarily delegated with the additional charge of District Magistrate.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Subodh Abhyankar was essentially dealing with a petition moved by the mother of detainee. She argued that the order of detention of her son passed by the Municipal Commissioner was illegal as the Commissioner was neither a competent authority to passed the order U/S 3(2) nor did she timely communicate about the detention order along with grounds for detention to the State Government, as required U/S 3(3) of the Act of 1980.
Case Title: Dharmpal Singh Jadon & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 24
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently dismissed an application filed for compounding of offences under Sections 307 (attempt to Murder) and 498-A (Cruelty to wife) read with Section 34 of IPC, based on a compromise between the parties involved.
Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed,
"the allegations are serious in nature wherein mother-in-law & sister-in-law with the help of complainant's husband dragged the complainant by making knot in her neck and also brutally beaten her with intention to kill her. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case along with gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused persons, it would not be appropriate to quash the FIR for the offences under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC only on the basis of settlement between the accused persons and the complainant."
Case title - SMT. POONAM BHADORIYA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 25
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that during the video conference hearings in bail pleas, since the Courts have no access to case diaries, therefore, the duty heavily lies on the Public Prosecutor to read out the correct allegations against the accused/applicant. The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia was hearing the bail pleas filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC.
Case Title: Laxman Rao Vs. Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna and anr.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 26
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench recently held that conducting a preliminary enquiry is not sine qua non for issuing a direction for prosecution U/S 195 CRPC and that the Applicant is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing prior to that.
The single bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a Criminal Revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the appeal was preferred by the Applicant against the dismissal of his application U/S 340 CRPC before Judicial Magistrate of First Class was rejected.
Case title - ASHISH AGRAWAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 27
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur bench) has asked the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as to whether an advocate, who is charged with 7 cases of theft and from whom recovery is made, can represent himself as an advocate or not, and whether such an advocate is entitled to maintain his license to practice. The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with the second bail application of an Advocate Ashish Agrawal, who has been accused of committing theft and from whom, recovery was also made
Case Title: Rajlakshmi Foundation v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 28
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently dismissed a PIL that sought for transfer of power of a Family Court in respect of deciding custody of a child, to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Petitioner, calling the petition to be "nothing but a misuse of the process of law".
Case Title: Rahul Islam Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected the second bail application moved by the accused under the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 along with M.P. Drugs Controls Act, 1949 on the ground that cases of drug abuse are on the rise, which is adversely affecting the young generation.
It also made reference to the effects of organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs on adolescents and students, as notice by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Harish Chandra Hinunia v. Food Corporation Of India
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 30
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently prohibited departmental inquiry against an employee with respect to a charge identical to the one for which he was under trial in a criminal case. Justice Atul Sreedharan cited two reasons for doing so:
First, the charge against the employee under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act involved complicated questions of fact and law.
Second, both proceedings involved same set of witnesses which may lead to disclosure of the accused's defence in the course of the departmental enquiry, and may hamper fair trial if it comes to the knowledge of the prosecution.
Case Title: Madhav Shrama v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 31
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently dismissed a petition filed by a NEET candidate seeking directions of the Court to allow him to change his domicile status to M.P. on his counselling form, since the last date of registration had passed. Citing Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Admission Rules"), the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Kumar Sharma held-
"The language of Rule 6 aforesaid, in our opinion is plain, clear and unambiguous. Thus, it should be given effect to in spite of any consequence. The purpose of inserting Rule 6 is already dealt with in sufficient detail by the previous Division Bench in Ayushi Saraogi (supra). We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Ayushi Saraogi (supra). If any other interpretation is given to the said Rule, it will certainly defeat the very purpose of inserting the said Rule in the statute book. Rule 6 is inserted by law maker with a conscious view that if position or factual aspects are permitted to be changed, it will create chaos for the examining authorities."
Case Title: Subhash Chandra Vs Union Of India And Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 32
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently reprimanded the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal for venturing into foreign territory and rendering a finding on the caste status of the Petitioner as the same was beyond its jurisdiction.
The division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging two orders passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal had dismissed his application on merits and on ground of limitation.
Case Title: Gagan Agrawal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 33
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the S.P., District Sehore to conduct a proper enquiry against a complainant, who allegedly filed a false rape case.
Stating that such actions are nothing but a misuse of the provisions in law and the Court must teach a lesson to the persons like the complainant, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ordered,
"the Superintendent of Police, Sehore, is directed to make a proper enquiry in the matter and if it is found that the complainant had made false allegation against the applicant, then offence be registered against her in accordance with law for making a false complaint or misusing the provisions of law."
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 34
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition whereby the Petitioner was seeking revival of his candidature for a post at an Ordnance Factory, observing that his acquittal from the trial court in a criminal case was not honourable and clean.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav observed,
"The sensitivity involved in a post may not be of such high degree as involved in a disciplined/uniformed service but since the organization where the petitioner would have been employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being."
Case Title: Smt. Krishna Prajapati v. State of M.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 35
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently upheld the decision of the state government to appoint Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors in all its districts as Special Public Prosecutors U/S 15 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act").
Justice Atul Sreedharan was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) under the SC/ST Act, whereby she was challenging the order passed by the state government appointing all the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors as SPPs U/S 15 of SC/ST Act.
Case Title: Shobit Nigam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 36
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently allowed a bail application of the Applicant, accused under the provisions of IPC and POCSO Act after considering the categorical statement made by the Prosecutrix, whereby she conveyed that she was a well-educated, grown up with a sound mind and that she developed physical relation with the Applicant by her own wish and was also ready to marry him.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant, accused for offences U/S 363, 366, 376 (3), 376(2)(n) IPC and U/S 5(L), 6 POCSO Act. He was in custody since October last year.
NOC From Husband Not Required For Wife To Donate Kidney: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Meena Devi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 37
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently held that the rejection of an application, moved by the Petitioner/mother to donate her kidney to her ailing son, by the Respondent/Hospital on the ground of non-issuance of the NOC by her husband was not sustainable.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the communication from the Hospital, whereby it had rejected her request for a kidney transplant.
Case Title: Kallu Khan v. State of M.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 38
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, only a Judicial Magistrate First Class has the authority to verify the correctness of delayed registration of births and deaths, which have not been registered within one year of their occurrence. An Executive Magistrate has no authority in this regard.
Corollary to the ruling, it struck down Rule 9 of M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 which authorised the Executive Magistrate along with JMFC for the said purpose.
Case Title: Purva Balke v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 39
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench recently took a sympathetic view towards the situation of a NEET aspirant belonging to ST community, who inadvertently registered herself under the UR/ NRI quota. It allowed her to re-register herself in the last round of counselling.
Ordinarily, the Courts are reluctant in allowing such pleas. However, in the present case, the division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) observed,
"It is very unfortunate that the petitioner, being ST Category student who comes from remote tribal areas of this country has persuaded the studies up to Class – XII and cleared NEET Examination with good rank, inadvertently has submitted the registration form under the wrong category and did not correct the same before the last date."
Case Title: Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another Vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 40
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the policy of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) to not consider sisters/ married daughters for compassionate appointment is a clear case of gender bias and is thus, unconstitutional.
Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent company, whereby it had rejected her application for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased.
Case Title: Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 41
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that with respect to search and seizure in cases under the NDPS Act, 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Case Title: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. PREMSINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently upheld the decision of a single bench wherein the Writ Court had directed the State to consider the younger son of a deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, despite his elder son serving in the Indian Army. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pranay Verma noted that the elder son, though was in regular employment, lived separately, had constituted his own family and was not in a position to provide financial aid to the deceased's family, i.e. deceased's wife and younger son.
Case Title: FAISAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 43
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday, directed the release of an adult woman confined at Nari Niketan, who was facing opposition in her family for wanting to marry a man outside her religion. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Manindar Singh Bhatti further advised her to concentrate on finishing her studies, stating that marriage, though important, can be postponed when pitched against education.
Case Title: Mohanlal Patidar v. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 44
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a Bank cannot unilaterally change the quantified OTS (One Time Settlement) amount as the same would be against the principles of natural justice, and also runs contrary to the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the order of the Respondent Bank, whereby the latter had unilaterally increased the quantified OTS amount from Rs. 36,50,000/- to Rs. 50,50,000/-.
Case Title: SANJAY SINGH BAGHEL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Superintendent of Police, District Shahdol to take appropriate action against the 'delinquent' police officers for not registering a case under proper sections, allegedly to extend the benefits to the accused. Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with the second bail application moved by the Applicant accused U/S 409, 420 & 34 IPC.
Post Of Water Carrier Constable In Police Force Not A Technical Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: STATE OF M.P. v. SUNNY KARARI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 46
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently held that the Post of Constable (Water Carrier) in Police department is not a technical job and accordingly, rejected the contention of the State that the said post being technical, required a higher degree of medical fitness than what the Petitioner in this case possessed. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Writ Court, whereby the State was directed to issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the Petitioner (Respondent in Appeal), along with other benefits.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 47
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently set aside the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, holding that he failed to discharge his obligation, in as much as forwarding the case to the State Government after nearly 10 days of passing the respective order.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.D. Bansal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, wherein he was challenging the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate (DM), Bhopal, by invoking Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter, 'Act of 1980').
Case Title: Anamika Tomar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 48
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently granted stay against the policy of the State Government to increase the reservation for the OBC category from 14% to 27%, for admission in the All India Ayush Postgraduate Entrance Test, 2021.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Manindar Singh Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, questioning the validity of Section 4(2)(i)(a) and (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatioyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon Evam Anya PichhdaVargon to Arakshan) Adhiniyam 1994 for admission in the All India Ayush Postgraduate Entrance Test, 2021. The Petitioner, who was desirous to get admission in the said Entrance Test was further challenging the Gazette Notification, dated 8.03.2019.
Case title - Shaikh Shahrukh v. Youth Congress Election Authority and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 49
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently observed that the conduct of internal elections of any political party cannot be adjudged on the basis of guidelines framed by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the constitution.
The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav further clarified that the Election Commission of India, under Article 324 of the Constitution, does not frame any guideline for the conduct of organizational election of any political party.
Case Title: Bandhavgarh Guides Association & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 50
The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Bandhavgarh Guides Association, challenging the resolution passed by the Local Advisory Committee, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, to induct 50 additional tourist guides.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was of the opinion that such a resolution of the Local Advisory Committee should not be interfered with in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, because the decision has been taken by the experts of the field based on the local requirement.
Change Of Counsel Not Ground To Recall Witnesses U/S 311 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Ichhashankar Vs. State of MP
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 51
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench dismissed a criminal revision, whereby the Applicant was praying for re-examination of witnesses in a trial, holding that change of counsel cannot be a ground for recall of the witnesses.
Furthermore, it noted that if the Applicant felt that his previous Counsel had indulged in professional misconduct, he should report the same to the Bar Council, since the Court cannot presume a lawyer's incompetency.
Case Title: Narendra Mishra v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Jabalpur (M.P.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 52
The High Court quashed the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings in a case registered for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), observing that the investigating agency proceeded for prosecution based on half-baked material, and that allowing trial to proceed on the basis of the same would be an exercise in futility, inevitably resulting in the discharge of the accused.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was essentially dealing an application under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking directions of the Court to quash the charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings against the Applicant for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
Case Title: Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch and Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 53
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, which had sought for the Court's direction to the state government to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the Petitioner for fixing a limit of the expenses to be incurred by candidates contesting elections to various posts held under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
Dismissing the petition, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal held that a writ for mandamus cannot lie to direct the state to enact a law.
Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 54
The High Court held that the Registrar Co-operative Society exercising power of the election tribunal cannot pass an interim order to restrain newly elected members of a society from executing their duties.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the single bench of the Court, whereby it had upheld the order of the Registrar to restrain the Petitioner from exercising their power in the Society concerned.
Case Title: Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 55
The High Court Indore Bench granted bail to one Tousif Khan, accused of developing relationship with a woman by lying to her about his religious identity and thereby committing rape under a false pretext of marriage.
The Court noted that the Prosecutrix was apparently a major at the time of the incident and from her statements, the probability of her being a consenting party cannot be ruled out.
Case Title: Jaya Chakravarti Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 56
The High Court, Indore Bench refused to pass an order of child custody in favour of the Appellant-mother, upon noting that the children themselves had expressed their inclination to reside with their father.
"It is true that both of them are minor, however, the age of 16 years is not such an age where a child, given a choice, is not able to make up his or her mind as to his or her inclination to reside with either of the parents. In the present case, this choice has been exercised in favour of the father and thus, despite agreeing with the contentions of the appellant/petitioner regarding the legality of the impugned order, the learned Writ Court has not found it to be appropriate to hand over the custody of the children to the appellant/petitioner/wife," division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh observed.
Case Title: In Re. Special Judge (Electricity Act) No.5, Indore
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 57
Answering a reference requested by the lower court, the High Court Indore Bench held that a Special Judge under the Electricity Act, 2003 can try a case, wherein the accused is also charged for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Bharti Meshram v. State of madhya pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 58
The High Court directed the State Government to sympathetically consider the representation of a government school teacher, who was 100 percent visually impaired, for a posting based on her preference.
The case of the Petitioner was that she was a resident of Waraseoni, District Balaghat and was 100 percent visually impaired. She was recently appointed as a Middle School Teacher of a Government School at Sarouli, District Jabalpur. The said school being 300 kms away from her hometown, she made two representations to the concerned authorities, requesting for a posting near her hometown, but the same were kept pending. Therefore, she filed the writ petition seeking direction of the Court to the Respondents to consider her case sympathetically and give her a posting based on her three preferences.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Pathak & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 59
The High Court held that the Petitioners, who were working for an agency that was hired by the State, did not have a legal right to stop the government from outsourcing services in the interest of the economy and efficiency.
Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was dealing with a batch of petitions that were challenging the order passed by the State Government, whereby it decided to outsource the services through an outsourcing agency and had also directed for fresh selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade- III/Data Entry Operator by conducting an open written examination.
Case Title: Greeshm Jain v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 60
Deciding a Public Interest Litigation, the High Court directed the State Government to remove all statues erected at public places on or after 18.01.2013, throughout the State. It further imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State 'for wasting the precious time of Court in dealing with this avoidable piece of litigation.'
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was essentially dealing with a PIL filed by a lawyer raising the public cause against erection of a 10 feet tall statue of a former Chief Minister at a busy tr-junction in Bhopal.
Case Title: Ajay Kori s and anr. V. State of madhya pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 61
The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on a Station House Officer for providing incorrect information to the Court regarding criminal antecedents of the bail Applicants in a case.
Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with an application under Section 482 of CrPC, moved by the Applicants seeking a modification in their bail order passed by the Court earlier. The bail application was allowed, subject to the verification of the fact that the Applicants were first time offenders. However, during the furnishing of bail, it was revealed that the Applicants weren't first time offenders.
Deepali Jadhav V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
Case Title: MOHD. ADIL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 62
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh denied bail to the Appellant convicted for offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, observing that the contentions put forth by the Appellant would have to be considered at the later stage of final hearing.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal was dealing with an application U/S 389 CRPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, filed by the Appellant convicted by the trial court U/S 16(B), 18 UAPA, and U/S 6 Explosive Substances Act.
Case Title: HIMANSHU @ MINTU DAY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Director General Of Police to seek explanation from an Investigating Officer, for 'wasting his time and resources in a wrong direction', while investigating a case.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and also under Section 5, 6 of POCSO Act.
Case Title: DILEEP KUMAR YADAV S/O MOHAN YADAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 64
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside an order passed by the Collector, terminating the contractual services of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, by observing that the said order was passed without following the principles of natural justice.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Collector, District Betul, whereby his contractual service as Gram Rojgar Sahayak was terminated for his alleged actions of misappropriating government money.
Case Title: Vidhi ka Ulaghan Karne Wala Balak Versus State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 65
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench held that a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) cannot be treated as an undertrial prisoner as contemplated under Section 436-A CrPC, since arrest/ confinement/ apprehension are not contemplated in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Anand Pathak was essentially dealing with a criminal revision preferred by a CCL, challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed.
Case Title: Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of M.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 66
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench directed a Bail Applicant to plant five saplings of any 'fruit bearing tree' or 'Neem/Pipal tree', as one of the conditions for granting him bail.
Justice Anand Pathak however made it clear that the bail plea was allowed based on the merits of the case and not in exchange for any social service.
"Bail is granted once the case is made out for bail and thereafter, direction for plantation of saplings is given and it is not the case where a person intends to serve social cause can be given bail without considering the merits," the Bench said.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 67
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissed two petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, seeking action against a government hospital for its alleged negligence that led to disruption of oxygen supply, causing death of its 17 patients.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) was dealing with two writ petitions in the nature of PIL, whereby the Petitioners were seeking criminal as well as disciplinary action against the persons responsible for the death of innocent people along with a heavy amount of compensation to family members of the victims. By way of interim relief, they had also sought for an investigation/inquiry by an independent agency, headed by a retired High Court Judge.
Case Title: Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday held that the candidates belonging to other states will also be permitted to participate in the MP State Civil Services Exam (MPSC). It further directed the MP Public Service Commission to make adequate improvisation in its website to permit such candidates to submit their application forms.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by a resident of Jharkhand who was unable to register himself for the MPSC exam. He sought for a direction to the authorities to open application forms for the MPSC Examination, 2021, for which the last date for submission is March 12, to all the candidates irrespective of the domiciles..
Case title : Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (MP) 69
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench held that the paramour of mother-in-law of the deceased would not come within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC, since he cannot be considered to be a family member of the husband of the deceased for the purpose of Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.
Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with a criminal revision preferred by the Applicant, challenging the order passed by the trial court, whereby the court framed charges against him for offences punishable U/S 304-B R/W 109 IPC.
Case title : Ramdayal Charmkarr v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 70
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed an Additional Sessions Judge to conclude the remaining trial of a murder case within 30 days or else he would be liable to provide a detailed explanation for each days' delay.
The single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal directed as follows-
Let trial be now concluded within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order being passed today i.e. on or before 8th April, 2022, otherwise Presiding Officer will be liable to give explanation for delay of each and every day along with the fact that why he is shy of exercising his authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case title: Siddhi Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (MP) 71
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the request of a family to bring their adult daughter (Petitioner) back to them, under police custody, and to further hand her over to them. The Petitioner, who eloped from her house to pursue further studies and aspired to be an IAS Officer, had approached the Court seeking protection from her family
Justice Nandita Dubey was dealing with a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old woman who was worried about her safety, pursuant to an F.I.R. lodged by her uncle, from whose house she went missing.
Case Title: Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench quashed the F.I.R. and further criminal proceedings against the Applicant accused for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and Indian Penal Code, holding that prosecution launched by Police was not in accordance with law as they registered the case at their own instance, without taking permission of the Collector concerned or mentioning the Control Order violated by the Applicant.
Justice R.K. Shrivastava was dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant seeking directions of the Court to Quash the F.I.R. and further proceedings against him for offenses punishable under Section 3, 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ("EC Act") and under Section 353, 186, 34 IPC.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Jain V State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (MP) 73
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a perusal of the Scheme of the Arms Act, 1959 nowhere suggests that the renewal of license can be refused on the grounds of registration of a criminal case.
Justice P.K. Kaurav was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order of dismissal of his appeal under Section 18 Arms Act, whereby the order of the Licensing Authority was affirmed.
Case Title: People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Center and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 74
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the decision of the Appellate Authority to reduce seats in a medical course, observing that Section 28 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 does not permit the Appellate Authority to act as Medical Assessment and Rating Board, for the purpose of reduction of seats unilaterally.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner/College, aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority under the 2019 Act, whereby the seats in a medical course were reduced from 7 to 5
Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench dismissed an application moved by a Complainant in a dacoity case, seeking custody of the recovered stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 45 Lakhs.
The Court held that since the said amount was not disclosed before the Income Tax Department (IT Department) prior to the incident, the same was liable to be handed over to the IT Department for assessment.
Case Title: DEEPALI JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Held that a Tehsildar, alleged to have misused her position by extending undue benefit to her husband as well as her servant was not entitled for protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice V.K. Shukla was dealing with a criminal revision, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby she was denied protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 ("Act of 1985").
Case Title: Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77
The High Court requested its Registrar General to file a complaint case against the Petitioner for making false statements and producing fake medical documents before the Court.
Justice Atul Sreedharan was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by his employers, whereby his representation to condone his absence for the period from 2003 to 2006 on the grounds of serious illness and his reinstatement in service, was rejected.
Case Title: Alka sharma and anr. V. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 78
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench refused to interfere in a matter related to custody of a child, holding that an adopted child cannot be handed over to his biological parents without enquiring whether the child has any knowledge of his parentage. The Court further noted that family courts are appropriate forums for such enquires since they are well equipped for the same.
Justice Vivek Rusia was dealing with a writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus, wherein the Petitioners being the biological parents of a 12-years-old child, were seeking custody of their child from his adoptive parents.
Case Title: Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench directed a Government Bank to reverse its decision of cancelling the candidature of a successful candidate for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) due to typographical error in date of birth, and to further issue appointment order in her favour.
Justice Pranay Verma observed,
"It is not the case of respondent itself that the petitioner has derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in the application. There was no intentional misrepresentation on part of the petitioner as she had submitted her school Certificate. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. Cancellation of candidature of petitioner on the ground of typographical error in her application form is hence arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of her lapse."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Police Protection For Woman Who Married Outside Her Caste
Case Title : Gadiya Sejal Ben V The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 80
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed police protection to a woman who married outside her caste, as she was being threatened by her parents for the same.
Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was seeking police protection for herself, her husband and her in-laws. She also sought for transit bail for her husband so that he could appear before the court of JMFC, District Surendranagar in Gujarat.
Case Title: Hiralal Dhurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 81
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere with the charge framed against an Advocate under the POCSO Act for 'ill-advising' the accused and Prosecutrix in a rape case, suggesting them 'not to disclose true facts to the police'.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was dealing with a criminal revision preferred by the Applicant aggrieved by order of the trial court, whereby he was charged for offence punishable under Section 19 (Reporting of offences) and 21 (Obligation of media, studio and photographic facilities to report cases) POCSO Act.
Case Title: SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 82
The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the decision of a Single Judge, dismissing a writ petition filed by an Association on the ground that the resolution passed by its members neither specified that the Association was being authorised to file the petition on their behalf nor did it clarify whether the members would abide by the decision rendered in the petition.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant/Association which was aggrieved by the decision of the single bench of the Court. While dismissing the writ petition, the Writ Court had cited the decision of a division bench of the Court in Prabhat v. Barkatulla University and held that the Petitioner/Association did not fulfil the criteria as laid down in the case.
Case Title: Shivkumar Kushwaha V The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 83
The High Court directed enquiry against a Police Officer for suppressing evidence, by not furnishing information regarding the video clip of the alleged rape in the case diary, which was sent to the Office of the Advocate General.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC, under Sections 3,4 POCSO Act, under Sections 3(1)(W)(ii), 3(2)(v) SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 67, 67(A) The Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84
The Madya Pradesh High Court ruled that income disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be included with the regular income declared under Income Tax Act as the tax paid under the Scheme cannot be refunded at any cost.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Kesharwani, has held that tax paid under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax paid under Income Tax Act are different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. The Bench added that an assessee cannot be permitted to disclose part of his income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and other part of his income in an income tax return filed belatedly under the Act.
Case Title: Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that the power of Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") does not require a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Act, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the JJB, whereby it granted bail under Section 12 of the Act to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
Case Title : Rajnish Kumar Tiwari V The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 86
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an order of preventive detention on the ground that the detenu was not given an opportunity to submit a representation before the detaining authority, which was in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, wherein he was seeking directions of the Court to quash the order of his detention, passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to his power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
Case Title :Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors
Case Title: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld its decision of not interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, directing compulsory retirement of a court reader as punishment for taking bribe of Rs. 10.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking direction of the Court to quash the impugned orders of his punishment and arrears for the period of his suspension.
Case Title: Vishal Kushwaha v. Ragini Kushwaha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 88
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the period of one year of living in separation is a must to the filing of an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that waiver of this period under Section 14 of the Act is not permissible.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.K. Paliwal was dealing with first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 preferred by the Appellant/husband against the order of the lower court, whereby the application for mutual divorce of the Appellant and his wife under Section 13B of the Act was rejected.
Case Title: Private Paramedical Colleges Welfare Association v. State of madhya pradesh and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 89
Dismissing a PIL, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh imposed cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the Petitioner, observing that 'the provisions of public interest litigation were misused'. It further held that 'in the guise of preventing criminal action, no public interest litigation would lie'.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed in the nature of a PIL by an Association of Medical Colleges.
Case Title :Pahalwan Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 90
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an application to recall Prosecutrix in a rape case for re-examination, corollary to 'material development' in the matter.
She had filed an affidavit before the Court in support of the Applicant/accused in his bail application, stating that he had not committed any crime upon her and that she would not object to him being enlarged on bail.
