Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

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

'Sufficient Material Shown To Convict Appellant': Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Man Convicted For Offences Under UAPA And Explosives Act

Case Title: MOHD. ADIL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 62

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently 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.

'Inefficient, Ignorant Of Basic Common Sense': Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Inquiry Against Police Officer For Investigating In Wrong Direction

Case Title: HIMANSHU @ MINTU DAY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 63

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently 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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Laments At Bureaucrats Passing Orders Being Oblivious To Principles Of Natural Justice, Manifesting Heedlessness

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 recently 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.

'Child In Conflict With Law Can't Be Treated As Under Trial Prisoner U/S 436-A CrPC': Madhya Pradesh High Court

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 recently 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.

'Important To Rejuvenate Ideas Of Love & Mercy': Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Murder Accused To Plant Saplings As Condition For Bail

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently 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.

Plea Based On Newspaper Reports, No Inquiry Into Facts Conducted: MP HC Dismisses PIL Against Govt Hospital For Medical Negligence With ₹10K Cost

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently 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.

High Court Permits Candidates From Other States To Appear For Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Exam

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..

Dowry Death | Paramour Of Mother-in-Law Not Family Member Within Ambit Of S. 304B IPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case title : Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (MP) 69

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench recently 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.

'Casual Approach Towards HC Directions': Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Lower Court To Conclude Remaining Murder Trial In 30 Days

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently 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.

'Right To Live As Per Own Will': MP High Court Refuses To Interfere With Decision Of Adult Woman To Move Out Of House To Pursue Studies

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.

'FIR Does Not Indicate Which Control Order Is Violated, Prosecution Not In Accordance With Law': MP HC Quashes Case Under Essential Commodities Act

Case Title: Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently 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 recently 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.

Appellate Authority Can't Unilaterally Order Reduction Of Medical College Seats U/S 28 Of National Medical Commission Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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 recently 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

MP High Court Grants Custody Of Looted Property Recovered By Police To Income Tax Department As The Same Was Not Disclosed By Complainant

Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently 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 recently 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").