On 2021-03-26
It was ordered that for mental checkup be done for the accused-Advocate through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.
Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 26 Mar 2021Category: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification
Brajmohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of India on 05 Jan 2021
After overcoming getting himself enrolled with MP Bar Council here, this advocate was cleared to appear for AIBE exam at Gwalior examination center.
Brajmohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of India on 05 Jan 2021Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018
MP High Court held that, a person who is not convicted but merely accused cannot be denied entry into the State Bar Council rolls.
Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018Citation :
Other Sources :
Later on, this advocate had trouble with AIBE exam also here.
Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020
Even though the MP High Court held the law point correctly, IMHO, the said FIR which was saved by this Court, has no future, unless it was treated as a FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC, which is what the case is here.
From Para 15 16
Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 202015/ The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC a public servant is required to file a complaint before the competent court and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered.
16/ Such an argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. A bare reading of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reveals that the provisions contained in the sub-section are attracted at the stage of taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR, therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be registered by the police and after investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, a competent public servant can file the complaint before the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes
into operation.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/zaid-pathan-and-others-vs-state-of-m-p
Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020
High Court of Madhya Pradesh held illegal the acts of Notaries in the State, as follows.
Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020Not only the accused persons who have conspired in performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents. Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department of State of M.P. For taking action in the matter.
Citations :
Other sources :
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Dec 2020
In this wonderful Order from 1-judge Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that parading suspects in the media/public is violative of Article 21 and the concerned officers are liable for the violation of fundamental rights including compensation.
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020Here is the Final Judgment… Some snippets follow…
From Paras 21, 22 and 23,
21. The Counsel for the State also could not point out as to how, the respondent no. 3 could have taken cognizance of the complaint made by the landlady. From the plain reading of the application, it is clear that She had prayed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction of the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, the complaint filed made by the landlady can be said to have disclosed cognizable offence. Even a non-cognizable offence was not disclosed in the complaint. The entire complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the police authorities but still cognizance of the same was taken.
22. When a specific question was put to Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that whether it is the official duty of the police to get the shops vacated without there being any orders of the Court, then it was rightly admitted by Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that the police has no authority whatsoever under any law, to evict the tenants from the tenanted premises and the eviction can take place only under the decree of eviction issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, it is submitted by Shri Sanghi, that the incident of 25-7-2020 took place
prior to his posting in Gwalior. Even the respondent no.3, in his return has categorically stated that the matter of eviction is a civil matter and police has no jurisdiction.23. Although the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 relied upon Section 23 of Police Act, but as a departmental enquiry is pending against the respondents no. 3 to 5, therefore, only undisputed facts and the stand taken by the respondents as well as the preliminary enquiry reports are being considered for deciding this petition. However, it is not out of place to mention here, that now the respondents no. 3 to 5 are involved in mud-sledging on each other, thereby placing certain documents on record, which were suppressed by the respondents no. 1 and 2.
From Para 24,
24. It is the case of the respondent no. 4 that it was the respondent no. 3, who had directed her to enquire the complaint made by the landlady, whereas it is the case of the respondent no. 3, that the copy of the complaint was given to him by respondent no. 4, only when he returned back to the police station at 16:00 and the endorsement made on the application thereby, directing the respondent no. 4 to enquire, does not bear his signatures. However, the return of the respondent no. 3 is beautifully silent as to whether such endorsement is in his handwriting or not? In para 8 of the return, the respondent no. 3 has pleaded that as per routine procedure when any complaint is submitted in Police Station, it is registered in Complaint register and is placed by the Police Station Munshi before the respondent no.3. Although it is the contention of the respondent no. 3 that he was
given the said application by the respondent no.4, only after he came back to the police station at 16:00, but his return is completely silent as to why he did not ask the respondent no. 4, that under whose authority, the endorsement of entrusting enquiry to the respondent no. 4 was written. In absence of such pleadings, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent no.3, and it is held that endorsement made on the application dated 25-7-2020 made by the landlady is in the handwriting of the respondent no.3 and it was the respondent no.3 who had entrusted the enquiry to the respondent no.
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Dec 2020
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19697017/
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015
No Shared household hence no DVC.
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
Liyakatuddin Vs The State of M.P. on 21 August, 2018
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
Kunaldev Singh Rathor and others Vs State of MP and another on 02 December, 2016
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”]
Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017
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
