Filter by Date

For the Latest Updates, Please Join Our Channel 

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Pappu @ Dayaram Vs. State of M.P

Criminal Appeal, 949 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jun 03, 2021

Law laid down -  Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act – Dying Declaration-The conviction can be based solely on the basis of an oral dying declaration provided such declaration is free from any doubt and its correctness and genuineness is out of question. Multiple Dying Declarations - If there are more than one dying declaration, Court needs to examine qualitative worth of each declaration and not number of declarations. The dying declaration must be examined with utmost care and caution because the maker Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Rajjan Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and others

WRIT PETITION, 18600 of 2020, Judgment Date: May 31, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Offence
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION, 9320 of 2021, Judgment Date: May 17, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags SUO MOTU
Madhya Pradesh High Court

MADHURI KRISHNASWAMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION, 8391 of 2020, Judgment Date: May 17, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags SUO MOTU
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Vishal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC, 17991 of 2021, Judgment Date: May 04, 2021

Law laid down -  Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC is irrational. Marriageable age in India is 18 years, giving consent for sexual intercourse is also 18 years. Exception is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO Act. Definition of “Child” as per Section 2(1)(d) is below 18 years. The preamble also provides that “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and need to be effectively addressed” This is directly in conflict with Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC. Section Full Judgment

Tags Bail Rape
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

In Reference (Suo Motu) vs. Union of India and others

WRIT PETITION, 8914, 20889 & 8991 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 30, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags PIL SUO MOTU
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

In Reference (Suo Motu) versus Union Of India

WRIT PETITION, 8820 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 23, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Nitin Khandelwal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

MCC, 15570 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 23, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Bail
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Pramod Yadav Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Criminal Appeal, 5189 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Bail Rape
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Kamal Khare Vs. The State of M.P. and others

WRIT PETITION, 22290 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Arun Parmar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 1539 of 2018, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Bhopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 4021 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 19/04/2021

WRIT PETITION, 8914 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 19, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags SUO MOTU
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Kalla alias Surendra Jat Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 4499 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 09, 2021

Law laid down:-   1. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. An act, affecting public order may have ramifications over law and order and security of the State at the same time. 2. Liberty of an individual is to be reconciled with collective interest of the community so that Public Order, Social Peace and overall Development of the Area may not be sacrificed at the altar of Lawlessness, Misgovernance and Private Retribution. 3. Crime and Disorder are strongly interrelated, therefore, Broken Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Satyanarayan Sharma & Anr. vs. State of M.P.

CRR, 945 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/s Om Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and others

WA, 1823 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Kundan Mukati S/o. Badrilal Mukati. V/s. State of M.P. & others

WRIT PETITION, 11362 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sonu Jain, Jiwan and Santosh vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 474,616 and 644 Judgment Date: Apr 06, 2021

Law laid down -  Section 302/304 Part-II Indian Penal Code - Single blow- As a Rule of Thumb, it cannot be said that in no case of single blow or injury, accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under Section 302 or under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Section 302 Full Judgment

Tags Murder
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D.K. Mishra vs. Hon'ble High Court of M.P. and another

WRIT PETITION, 19818 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - (i) Under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, a Government servant who had elected for voluntary retirement can withdraw his election subsequently with the specific approval of the authority and no absolute right exists in favour of such Government servant but the discretion given to the authority under Rule 42(2) is to be exercised “ön consideration of the circumstances of the case” and on the objective application of mind. Hence, the authority can Full Judgment

Tags Pension
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Madan Mohan Shrivastava vs. Additional District Magistrate (South) Bhopal and others

WRIT PETITION, 5629 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - (i) Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act permits the secured creditor to take recourse to the measures prescribed therein to recover the secured debt. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under Section Full Judgment

Tags Debt