Madhya Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 132 - 153]
NOMINAL INDEX Dr. Prakash kumar dubey v. Rani durgawati university 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 132 Basant v. The state of madhya pradesh govt. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 133 Vishal Pandey and anr. versus Food Corporation of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 134 M/s Om Sai RK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Forsight Infractech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 135 Premshankar Vijayvargiya and anr....
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Prakash kumar dubey v. Rani durgawati university 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 132
Basant v. The state of madhya pradesh govt. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 133
Vishal Pandey and anr. versus Food Corporation of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 134
M/s Om Sai RK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Forsight Infractech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 135
Premshankar Vijayvargiya and anr. V. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 136
Chandresh Marskole Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 137
Ajay Sahu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 138
Ashok v. The state of madhya pradesh and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 139
Shyam Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 140
Meghna Agarwal Vs. Anurag Bagadiya and another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 141
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Golu 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 142
Dr. (Mrs.) Neena V. Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 143
Lallu @ Krishnabhhan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 144
Prakash Singh and Nandita Singh v. State of MP and anr 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 145
Pappu v. The state of madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 146
State Of Madhya Pradesh V Satya Narayan Dubey 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 147
Vijay Mahobia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 148
Dharmadas Tirthdas Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 149
Himanshudhar Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 150
Bablesh Patel v. The state of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 151
M/s Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 152
Smt. Vinita jain verma and anr. Versus the state of madhya pradesh and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 153
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Dr. Prakash kumar dubey v. Rani durgawati university
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 132
The High Court held that the post of Scientific Officer/Senior Technical Assistant is not covered under the definition of a 'Teacher' under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-
In the present case, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to show that the post of Senior Technical Assistant or that of Scientific Officer has been declared by the Statute to be a post of Teacher… In the present case, since the post of Senior Technical Assistant or Scientific Officer has not been included in the Statute to mean a Teacher, no extension can be given to the definition just to accommodate the petitioner without there being any material and dehors the Statute.
Case Title: Basant v. The state of madhya pradesh govt.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 133
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that a statement made by the deceased contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter would be admissible as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Further, statements made by the complainants regarding words uttered by the deceased, though hearsay, are admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (Rule of res gestae).
Case Title: vishal pandey and anr. versus food corporation of india and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 134
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the child of the deceased government employee shall be considered as 'Dependant', despite the parent losing their custody, for the purpose of compassionate employment.
Deciding the writ petition, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-
I am of the opinion that impugned order deserves to be quashed as it is arbitrary and has failed to take into consideration a comprehensive meaning of the word 'dependent'. Respondents have tried to supply a very restricted meaning to the clause 'dependents', vide Annexure P-10, whereas admittedly, by virtue of divorce of his mother, petitioner No.1 will not lose his status of being a son who is covered by definition of 'dependent family member'.3.
Case Title: M/s Om Sai RK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Forsight Infractech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 135
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that once the appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the arbitrator is ineligible by virtue of Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), then the procedure prescribed under Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the A&C Act for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator are not applicable.
The Single Bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that if the arbitrator is appointment unilaterally by the opposite party, the ineligible appointment deserves to be set aside and the arbitrator can be removed at the stage of passing of the award. The Court reiterated that unless the appointment of an arbitrator is ex facie valid, it does not debar the jurisdiction of the Court in Section 11 of the A&C Act in appointing a new arbitrator.
Case Title: premshankar vijayvargiya and anr. V. Union of india and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 136
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently directed the Union of India to release the amount of compensation awarded to Petitioners, senior citizens, for their Bungalow that was resumed by the Ministry of Defence for their own purposes.
The Court observed that the Union of India was dragging its feet in paying the amount to the Petitioners despite its specific directions to the executing court to dispose of the execution proceeding within 4 months.
Case Title: Chandresh Marskole Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 137
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently set aside the conviction of a man for murder and further directed the State to pay him compensation worth Rs. 42 Lakhs, observing that his conviction was a result of a botch and maliciously motivated investigation by an 'outrightly partisan' police.
While directing the State to pay compensation, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Sunita Yadav further held that the Appellant was free to proceed against the State for an action in tort for malicious prosecution-
Case Title: ajay sahu v. The state of madhya pradesh and anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 138
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee to take appropriate action against the Police Officers concerned for tampering with forensic evidence in a rape case, to allegedly shield the Appellant/accused, who also happened to be a police officer.
Justice Vivek Agarwal further lamented that the Court would've directed that the case be handed over to the CBI for further investigation but the same, prima facie, would not help the victim as the delinquent officers had 'already played their role' by tampering with the evidence-
Marshalling Of Prosecution Witnesses Not Permitted At Stage Of Bail: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: ashok v. The state of madhya pradesh and anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 139
Considering the categorical statement made by a 11-yr-old rape victim, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected the bail application of the accused stating that at the stage of consideration of bail, marshalling of the prosecution witnesses is not permitted.
Justice Anil Verma observed:
"At the stage of consideration of bail, marshalling of the prosecution witnesses is not permitted as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. (Cr.A.No.651/2007) decided on 30/07/2007."
Title: Shyam Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 140
The High Court set aside the transfer order of a bureaucrat who was being transferred at the 'insistence' of the State Minister of Urban Administration.
The Court observed that although the elected representatives can always recommend the transfer of an employee, it ought to be done citing genuine and cogent reasons. It further noted that such interference by the Executive in matters of transfer was 'highly inappropriate'.
Case Title: Meghna Agarwal Vs. Anurag Bagadiya and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 141
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently set aside bail of a man, accused of committing unnatural sex with his wife.
The Court observed that the ground taken by the lower court while granting anticipatory bail to the accused/husband that there was delay in disclosure of offence under Section 377 IPC on the part of the Applicant/wife was unwarranted and made in a casual manner without appreciating the surrounding circumstances.
Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Golu
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 142
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently directed action against a lower court judge for not considering a crucial medical evidence of DNA report while acquitting the accused in a POCSO case. The Court observed that despite the medical report being brought on record, the same did not find mention in the impugned judgment passed by the respective trial court judge.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was hearing the application for grant of leave to appeal moved by the State against the impugned judgment passed by the lower court, whereby the accused was acquitted of charges punishable U/S 376-(A) (B), 377 IPC, U/S 6 POCSO Act and U/S 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly raping the Prosecutrix who, at the time of the incident, was 10 years old.
Case Title: Dr. (Mrs.) Neena V. Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 143
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that as far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. Justice Anjlu Palo referred to the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where it was observed that there are three categories of orders that a Court can pass – final, intermediate and interlocutory.
Case title - Lallu @ Krishnabhhan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 144
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for raping a 3-year-old girl. The court noted that the accused had left an indelible mark of devastation on the mind and body of the victim.
The Bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh and Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that in view of the rights and plight of the victim and her family members, the Life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is by no means severe or excessive.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 145
Case title - Prakash Singh and Nandita Singh v. State of MP and anr
"There are moments in courts when heated exchanges do take place and though rare, it is not unheard of that either the member of the Bar or the Bench also in equal measure, unwarily transgresses the line or propriety unintentionally," the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed recently as it expunged its remarks made against a senior counsel last month.
With this, the Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan allowed a plea made by Senior Counsel Mrigendra Singh seeking the expungement of the observations made by the court in paragraphs nos.8, 9, and 11 of its order passed last month.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 146
Case title - Pappu v. The state of madhya pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for raping a 3-year-old girl. The court noted that the accused had left an indelible mark of devastation on the mind and body of the victim.
The Bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh and Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that in view of the rights and plight of the victim and her family members, the Life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is by no means severe or excessive.
Case Title: State Of Madhya Pradesh V Satya Narayan Dubey
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 147
The High Court observed that public interest is also an element on the consideration of which an employee can be placed under suspension. The Court further held that even if it is alleged that the particular department of the employee did not suffer any loss due to him, the same cannot make him immune to suspension.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal observed-
…it cannot be forgotten that if the respondent, a senior officer is reinstated by staying the suspension order, he can scuttle the inquiry or investigation or can win over the witnesses of the departmental inquiry. This is within the province of the disciplinary authority to decide whether an employee is required to be suspended or not because suspension is a step towards ultimate result of an investigation or inquiry.
Case title - Vijay Mahobia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [WP No. 10187 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 148
The High Court has observed that Article 300A of the Constitution of India acts as a protector of individual interest and a tool for the state for infrastructural and various other development. The Court also stressed its scope is limited to the state's action.
The Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke further observed that the article maintains a balance between the interest of property owners and the interest of the state.
"The Article says that- No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. This means that nobody can be deprived of his right over property except if it is prescribed by law. This article emphasizes on the doctrine of eminent domain which means that the state can take over any private land if it is for public use. Therefore, the law prescribing the acquisition needs to be valid and the acquisition of the land by the state must be for a public purpose," the Court remarked.
Case Title: Dharmadas Tirthdas Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India and Ors., MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1043 of 2003.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 149
The High Court has held that the court cannot appoint the arbitrator when the petitioner has not complied with the condition precedent of referring the dispute to the Superintending Engineer.
The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia has held the pre-arbitral steps to be mandatory, the non-compliance of which will result in the rejection of the application for the appointment of the arbitrator.
Case Title: Himanshudhar Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 150
The High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court, directing the Superintendent of Police to take action against the Investigating Officer for an allegedly botched up investigation, observing that he was not given an opportunity by the lower court to explain his position.
Quashing the impugned order, Justice Atul Sreedharan observed-
Under the circumstances, the impugned order itself is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his position either before the learned trial court when he was being examined as a witness to the prosecution, where this court could have put questions and elicited answers to suggestions of a deliberately botched up investigation. Therefore, the petition succeeds and the impugned order/letter dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure A/3) addressed by the learned trial court to the Superintendent of Police, Panna, is quashed.
Case Title: Bablesh Patel v. The state of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 151
The High Court directed the trial court to issue direction against the Prosecutrix in a rape case to refund the compensation she had received from the State Government because she had admitted in her statement that she had lodged a false report against the accused.
Deciding the bail application moved by the Applicant/accused, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-
Trial court will consider issuance of a direction against the prosecutrix to refund the amount received by her because she admitted in her examination in chief that she has lodged false report on account of some oral dispute between the parties. Therefore, alleged false report is lodged, therefore she is not entitled to keep the amount of compensation paid by the State government collected from the tax payer of the country. Thus, trial court will consider to direct the prosecutrix to refund that amount in the appropriate head of the treasury account.
Case Title: M/s Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 152
The High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti upheld the cancellation of GST registration as there was a delay of 18 months in filing the appeal without reasonable justification.
The petitioner company/assessee was registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On account of non-filing of a return, the GST number allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. Against cancellation, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: smt. Vinita jain verma and anr. Versus the state of madhya pradesh and anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 153
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently directed a married couple seeking police protection that they may approach the Police Commissioner, Indore directly if they ever received any threat or had fear for their lives from their parents or anyone in future.
Justice Vivek Rusia further directed that in case the Commissioner finds that there is indeed a threat to the lives of the couple, they shall take action in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in Shakti Vahini vs. State of M.P.-
…if the petitioners receive any threat or about fear to their life from their parents or anyone, in future, they may approach to the Police Commissioner, Indore with their documents relating to age proof and marriage and record their statement and also inform the name of the person who is threatening them. If the petitioners cannot approach to the Police Commissioner, Indore due to some reason and in case of emergency then they are permitted to approach the nearest police station to record their statements. If the Police Commissioner/SHO finds that there is threat to the life of the petitioners then he shall immediately take action in accordance with the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Shakti Vahini (Supra).