Based on State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr judgment here and Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab judgment here, High Court of Madhya Pradesh gave this judgment differentiating the related witness and interested witness.
Liyakatuddin Vs The State of M.P. on 21 August, 2018Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the FIR, based on the documents submitted by Defense.
Kunaldev Singh Rathor and others Vs State of MP and another on 02 December, 2016[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this judgment from Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that “monetary relief is not restricted to maintenance only. In fact it is the monetary relief to meet the expenses and losses suffered. However, as the monetary relief can be granted towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, for expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person, therefore, it cannot be said that the lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000 so awarded by the Appellate Court was only by way of Maintenance Amount.”
Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in this judgment held that,
Surya Prakash Vs Smt. Rachna on 10 October, 2017If there is any instance of domestic violence, for which an affirmative or prohibitory order is passed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Non-payment of maintenance allowance is also a breach of ‘protection order’ or ‘interim protection order’. The order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Hon’ble High Court of Madhra Pradesh held that
Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016Therefore, it is absolutely essential for the Trial Court to summarily state the “basis” on which it forms an opinion justifying the framing of charges against an accused. This can be done without giving“Reasons”, elaborate or otherwise and it would suffice if the Trial Court refers to the evidence on record without any elaboration of its contents. Statements ofwitnesses can be referred to by the name of the witness without discussing the contents of the statements or how the same prima facie implicates the accused.
Very good judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. wherein Anticipatory Bail was granted but did not put condition to surrender passport.
Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014.
The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony.
Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics.
It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.
Even though, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has dismissed this M.Cr.C, it categorically held that,
Another issue raised by the knife in this case is that,
the respondent No.2 preferred the revision without impleading the applicant as party, therefore, the applicant could not get opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order passed behind the back of the applicant is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that presence of respondent No.2 is required during trial and in the event of end of trial into conviction it would be difficult to bring the respondent No.2 back to India from USA for serving out the sentence. In such circumstances, the order of granting permission to go to USA is not justified and, therefore, it be set aside.
And here is the slipper slap given by court to knife:
Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016It was not required for the respondent No.2 to make the applicant as party to the revision, therefore, the objection of the applicant that opportunity of hearing was not given to her before the revisional Court has no merit.
In this Perjury application which got rejected at the end, Applicant assailed that Contemnors withheld information in their bail application under 438 CrPC. But the Court did not find it Expedient In Interest Of Justice to continue with perjury application.
Interesting is the combination of CrPC 340 with CrPC 482.
Rajkumar Pathak Vs Ghanshyam Tiwari & Ors. on7 July, 2018
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ordered the State government to pay compensation of 1 lakh rupees to the accused due to the injustice inflicted over them by way of false implication. Our criminal Juris prudence gives more stress over avoiding of false implication of an innocent to the extent where hundred guilty may go scot- free. The spirit behind the same is very pious. Even otherwise, by one case of false implication of an innocent, rule of law loses one exponent (supporter) and a rebel with defiance towards rule of law is ready. Poor investigation with tainted prosecution is perfect recipe for such eventuality.
From Para 24,
Although, no such provision exists in the Cr.P.C. for compensating the accused but certainly State cannot wriggle out from its constitutional and tortious liability, in the present set of facts. Fundamental right of a person cannot be sacrificed at the altar of mis-governance or at the whims or because of poor investigation. State Government would be at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officers/ investigation officers, if appropriate authority decides so, after giving opportunity of hearing to them and if their casualness and negligence are proved in an enquiry.
From Para 25,
Durga @ Raja Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 6 July, 2018Time has come when the Rule of Law is to be included as one of the essential components of infrastructure like road, water, electricity etc., otherwise these component of infrastructure and development would be sacrificed at the altar of mis-governance and lawlessness. Bridging of schism between rule of law and lawlessness is the need of the hours. It is expected from the Law Department, Home Department and Prosecution Department of the State Government that they will create a mechanism for scientific and methodical police investigation and scientific and methodical prosecution of the accused so that citizen may get justice and spirit of Right to Access Justice is fulfilled. A constant training programme or continuous education with latest technology be employed by the said authorities so that investigation and prosecution agency may march with the time and people at large be assured of their empowerment by way of Right to Access Justice.
Another wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to the principle if grave suspicion exist the trial court should commit the case to trial.
A lot of judgments are citing herein.
Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Alias ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018