Madhya Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 50 To 90]

Bandhavgarh Guides Association & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 50

Ichhashankar Vs. State of MP 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 51

Narendra Mishra v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Jabalpur (M.P.) 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 52

Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch and Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 53

Vikas Tiwari v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 54

Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 55

Jaya Chakravarti Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 56

In Re. Special Judge (Electricity Act) No.5, Indore 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 57

Bharti Meshram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 58

Sandeep Kumar Pathak & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 59

Greeshm Jain v. The state of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 60

Ajay Kori s and anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 61

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

Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77

Alka Sharma and anr. V. The state of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 78

Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79

Gadiya Sejal Ben V The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 80

Hiralal Dhurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 81

SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 82

Shivkumar Kushwaha V The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 83

Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84

Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85

Rajnish Kumar Tiwari V The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 86

Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87

Vishal Kushwaha v. Ragini Kushwaha 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 88

Private Paramedical Colleges Welfare Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 89

Pahalwan Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 90

JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Article 19 | MP HC Dismisses Challenge To Induction Of More Tourist Guides In Tiger Reserve On Ground Of Reduction In 'Employment Possibilities'

Case Title: Bandhavgarh Guides Association & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 50

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Bandhavgarh Guides Association, challenging the resolution passed by the Local Advisory Committee, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, to induct 50 additional tourist guides.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was of the opinion that such a resolution of the Local Advisory Committee should not be interfered with in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, because the decision has been taken by the experts of the field based on the local requirement.

Change Of Counsel Not Ground To Recall Witnesses U/S 311 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ichhashankar Vs. State of MP

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 51

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench dismissed a criminal revision, whereby the Applicant was praying for re-examination of witnesses in a trial, holding that change of counsel cannot be a ground for recall of the witnesses.

Furthermore, it noted that if the Applicant felt that his previous Counsel had indulged in professional misconduct, he should report the same to the Bar Council, since the Court cannot presume a lawyer's incompetency.

Registering Offence Of Corruption Against Public Servants Merely On Written Complaints Without Supportive Material Disastrous: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Narendra Mishra v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Jabalpur (M.P.)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 52

The High Court quashed the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings in a case registered for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), observing that the investigating agency proceeded for prosecution based on half-baked material, and that allowing trial to proceed on the basis of the same would be an exercise in futility, inevitably resulting in the discharge of the accused.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was essentially dealing an application under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking directions of the Court to quash the charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings against the Applicant for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.

'Can't Direct State To Enact A Law': MP HC Dismisses PIL For Fixing Ceiling Limit On Expenses Incurred By Candidates In Local Body Elections

Case Title: Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch and Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 53

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, which had sought for the Court's direction to the state government to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the Petitioner for fixing a limit of the expenses to be incurred by candidates contesting elections to various posts held under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

Dismissing the petition, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal held that a writ for mandamus cannot lie to direct the state to enact a law.

Registrar Co-Operative Society Exercising Power Of Election Tribunal Cannot Issue Interim Direction Of Any Nature: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 54

The High Court held that the Registrar Co-operative Society exercising power of the election tribunal cannot pass an interim order to restrain newly elected members of a society from executing their duties.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the single bench of the Court, whereby it had upheld the order of the Registrar to restrain the Petitioner from exercising their power in the Society concerned.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Hiding Religious Identity From Prosecutrix & Committing Rape Under False Pretext Of Marriage

Case Title: Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 55

The High Court Indore Bench granted bail to one Tousif Khan, accused of developing relationship with a woman by lying to her about his religious identity and thereby committing rape under a false pretext of marriage.

The Court noted that the Prosecutrix was apparently a major at the time of the incident and from her statements, the probability of her being a consenting party cannot be ruled out.

Children Aged 16 Yrs, Competent To Decide Their Inclination To Reside With Either Parent: Madhya Pradesh HC Refuses To Grant Custody To Mother

Case Title: Jaya Chakravarti Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 56

The High Court, Indore Bench refused to pass an order of child custody in favour of the Appellant-mother, upon noting that the children themselves had expressed their inclination to reside with their father.

"It is true that both of them are minor, however, the age of 16 years is not such an age where a child, given a choice, is not able to make up his or her mind as to his or her inclination to reside with either of the parents. In the present case, this choice has been exercised in favour of the father and thus, despite agreeing with the contentions of the appellant/petitioner regarding the legality of the impugned order, the learned Writ Court has not found it to be appropriate to hand over the custody of the children to the appellant/petitioner/wife," division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh observed.

Can Special Judge Under Electricity Act Try Case Also Involving Offences Under IPC? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers

Case Title: In Re. Special Judge (Electricity Act) No.5, Indore

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 57

Answering a reference requested by the lower court, the High Court Indore Bench held that a Special Judge under the Electricity Act, 2003 can try a case, wherein the accused is also charged for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

'Exercise Discretion With Humane Consideration': MP High Court Directs State To Consider Request Of Visually Impaired Teacher For Preferable Posting

Case Title: Bharti Meshram v. State of madhya pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 58

The High Court directed the State Government to sympathetically consider the representation of a government school teacher, who was 100 percent visually impaired, for a posting based on her preference.

The case of the Petitioner was that she was a resident of Waraseoni, District Balaghat and was 100 percent visually impaired. She was recently appointed as a Middle School Teacher of a Government School at Sarouli, District Jabalpur. The said school being 300 kms away from her hometown, she made two representations to the concerned authorities, requesting for a posting near her hometown, but the same were kept pending. Therefore, she filed the writ petition seeking direction of the Court to the Respondents to consider her case sympathetically and give her a posting based on her three preferences.

Petitioners Not Being Employees Have No Legal Right To Stop Govt From Outsourcing Services: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Pathak & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 59

The High Court held that the Petitioners, who were working for an agency that was hired by the State, did not have a legal right to stop the government from outsourcing services in the interest of the economy and efficiency.

Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was dealing with a batch of petitions that were challenging the order passed by the State Government, whereby it decided to outsource the services through an outsourcing agency and had also directed for fresh selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade- III/Data Entry Operator by conducting an open written examination.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Removal Of All Illegal Statues Erected At Public Places, Imposes ₹30K Cost On State

Case Title: Greeshm Jain v. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 60

Deciding a Public Interest Litigation, the High Court directed the State Government to remove all statues erected at public places on or after 18.01.2013, throughout the State. It further imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State 'for wasting the precious time of Court in dealing with this avoidable piece of litigation.'

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was essentially dealing with a PIL filed by a lawyer raising the public cause against erection of a 10 feet tall statue of a former Chief Minister at a busy tr-junction in Bhopal.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Police Officer For Furnishing Incorrect Information To Court

Case Title: Ajay Kori s and anr. V. State of madhya pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 61

The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on a Station House Officer for providing incorrect information to the Court regarding criminal antecedents of the bail Applicants in a case.

Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with an application under Section 482 of CrPC, moved by the Applicants seeking a modification in their bail order passed by the Court earlier. The bail application was allowed, subject to the verification of the fact that the Applicants were first time offenders. However, during the furnishing of bail, it was revealed that the Applicants weren't first time offenders.

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 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 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 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 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

Case Title: Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of M.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 66

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench 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

Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 67

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench 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

Case Title: Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68

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 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

Case title : Ramdayal Charmkarr v State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 70

The Madhya Pradesh High Court 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 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.

Scheme Of Arms Act Nowhere Suggests Refusal To Renew License On Grounds Of Registration Of Criminal Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Jain V State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (MP) 73

The Madhya Pradesh High Court 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 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 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.

Tehsildar Who Allegedly Misused Post By Extending Undue Benefits To Husband Not Entitled For Protection Under Judges Protection Act: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: DEEPALI JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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").

He Had Labour Pain?: Madhya Pradesh HC Orders Action Against Man Who Produced Fake Medical Documents Seeking Reinstatement In Service

Case Title: Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77

The High Court requested its Registrar General to file a complaint case against the Petitioner for making false statements and producing fake medical documents before the Court.

Justice Atul Sreedharan was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by his employers, whereby his representation to condone his absence for the period from 2003 to 2006 on the grounds of serious illness and his reinstatement in service, was rejected.

Can't Suddenly Hand Over Adopted Child To Biological Parents, May Affect His Psychology: MP High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea For Custody

Case Title: Alka sharma and anr. V. The state of madhya pradesh and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 78

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench refused to interfere in a matter related to custody of a child, holding that an adopted child cannot be handed over to his biological parents without enquiring whether the child has any knowledge of his parentage. The Court further noted that family courts are appropriate forums for such enquires since they are well equipped for the same.

Justice Vivek Rusia was dealing with a writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus, wherein the Petitioners being the biological parents of a 12-years-old child, were seeking custody of their child from his adoptive parents.

Candidature Can't Be Cancelled For 'Minor Errors': MP High Court Restores Job Offer Of Woman Who Entered Wrong Date Of Birth In Application

Case Title: Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench directed a Government Bank to reverse its decision of cancelling the candidature of a successful candidate for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) due to typographical error in date of birth, and to further issue appointment order in her favour.

Justice Pranay Verma observed,

"It is not the case of respondent itself that the petitioner has derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in the application. There was no intentional misrepresentation on part of the petitioner as she had submitted her school Certificate. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. Cancellation of candidature of petitioner on the ground of typographical error in her application form is hence arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of her lapse."

Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Police Protection For Woman Who Married Outside Her Caste

Case Title : Gadiya Sejal Ben V The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 80

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed police protection to a woman who married outside her caste, as she was being threatened by her parents for the same.

Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was seeking police protection for herself, her husband and her in-laws. She also sought for transit bail for her husband so that he could appear before the court of JMFC, District Surendranagar in Gujarat.

MP High Court Refuses To Quash Charges Framed Against Advocate U/S 19&21 POCSO Act For 'Ill-Advising' Rape Accused To Conceal Crime

Case Title: Hiralal Dhurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 81

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere with the charge framed against an Advocate under the POCSO Act for 'ill-advising' the accused and Prosecutrix in a rape case, suggesting them 'not to disclose true facts to the police'.

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was dealing with a criminal revision preferred by the Applicant aggrieved by order of the trial court, whereby he was charged for offence punishable under Section 19 (Reporting of offences) and 21 (Obligation of media, studio and photographic facilities to report cases) POCSO Act.

Writ Petition By Association Maintainable Only When Court Satisfied That All Members Will Be Bound By Litigation: MP High Court

Case Title: SWAKSHTAGRAHI SANGH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT NIWAS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 82

The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the decision of a Single Judge, dismissing a writ petition filed by an Association on the ground that the resolution passed by its members neither specified that the Association was being authorised to file the petition on their behalf nor did it clarify whether the members would abide by the decision rendered in the petition.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant/Association which was aggrieved by the decision of the single bench of the Court. While dismissing the writ petition, the Writ Court had cited the decision of a division bench of the Court in Prabhat v. Barkatulla University and held that the Petitioner/Association did not fulfil the criteria as laid down in the case.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Enquiry Against Police Officer For Suppressing Evidence In Rape Case

Case Title: Shivkumar Kushwaha V The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 83

The High Court directed enquiry against a Police Officer for suppressing evidence, by not furnishing information regarding the video clip of the alleged rape in the case diary, which was sent to the Office of the Advocate General.

Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC, under Sections 3,4 POCSO Act, under Sections 3(1)(W)(ii), 3(2)(v) SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 67, 67(A) The Information Technology Act.

Income Disclosed Under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme Cannot Be Included With Regular Income ;Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84

The Madya Pradesh High Court ruled that income disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be included with the regular income declared under Income Tax Act as the tax paid under the Scheme cannot be refunded at any cost.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Kesharwani, has held that tax paid under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax paid under Income Tax Act are different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. The Bench added that an assessee cannot be permitted to disclose part of his income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and other part of his income in an income tax return filed belatedly under the Act.

Juvenile Justice Act | Preliminary Assessment U/S 15 Not Required For Grant Of Bail U/S 12: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that the power of Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") does not require a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Act, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the JJB, whereby it granted bail under Section 12 of the Act to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

Opportunity To Make Representation Against Preventive Detention Must Be Given Before Detaining Authority, Not State Govt: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title : Rajnish Kumar Tiwari V The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 86

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an order of preventive detention on the ground that the detenu was not given an opportunity to submit a representation before the detaining authority, which was in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, wherein he was seeking directions of the Court to quash the order of his detention, passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to his power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Of Court Staff For Taking ₹10 As Bribe

Case Title :Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors

Case Title: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld its decision of not interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, directing compulsory retirement of a court reader as punishment for taking bribe of Rs. 10.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking direction of the Court to quash the impugned orders of his punishment and arrears for the period of his suspension.

Divorce By Mutual Consent: Madhya Pradesh HC Rules Condition U/S13B(1) Hindu Marriage Act Of 'Living In Separation For One Year' Can't Be Waived

Case Title: Vishal Kushwaha v. Ragini Kushwaha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 88

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the period of one year of living in separation is a must to the filing of an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that waiver of this period under Section 14 of the Act is not permissible.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.K. Paliwal was dealing with first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 preferred by the Appellant/husband against the order of the lower court, whereby the application for mutual divorce of the Appellant and his wife under Section 13B of the Act was rejected.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses PIL Filed 'In The Guise Of Preventing Criminal Action', Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh

Case Title: Private Paramedical Colleges Welfare Association v. State of madhya pradesh and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 89

Dismissing a PIL, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh imposed cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the Petitioner, observing that 'the provisions of public interest litigation were misused'. It further held that 'in the guise of preventing criminal action, no public interest litigation would lie'.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed in the nature of a PIL by an Association of Medical Colleges.

S.311 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Trial Court To Recall Prosecutrix In Rape Case After She Changes Stance In Bail Proceedings

Case Title :Pahalwan Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 90

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an application to recall Prosecutrix in a rape case for re-examination, corollary to 'material development' in the matter.

She had filed an affidavit before the Court in support of the Applicant/accused in his bail application, stating that he had not committed any crime upon her and that she would not object to him being enlarged on bail.