Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Shyam Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Meghna Agarwal Vs. Anurag Bagadiya and another

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Golu

Dr. (Mrs.) Neena V. Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Lallu @ Krishnabhhan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Prakash Singh and Nandita Singh v. State of MP and anr

Pappu v. The state of madhya Pradesh

Judgments/Orders of the Week

'Such Interference Is Highly Inappropriate': MP High Court Quashes Transfer Order Of Bureaucrat Passed At 'Insistence' Of State Minister

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'.

'Wife's Patience Should Not Be Treated As Weakness/ Attempt To Create False Story': MP High Court Cancels Bail Of Husband Accused Of Unnatural Sex

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Action Against Lower Court Judge for Not Considering DNA Report in POCSO Case

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.

The Court Can Exercise Its Revisional Jurisdiction On An Intermediate Order Since It Is Not An Interlocutory Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Breaking Statue Of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar

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.

"Sometimes Bar Or Bench Members Unwarily Transgress Propriety Unintentionally": MP HC Expunges Remarks Against Senior Counsel

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.

"Accused Left Indelible Mark Of Devastation On 3 Yr Old Girl's Mind & Body": Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Life Sentence

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.

Other updates from the High Court

'Don't Allow Muslims To Offer Namaz In Bhojshala Complex' : Plea Of Hindu Front; MP High Court Issues Notice

The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition challenging the order dated April 7, 2003 passed by the Director-General, Archeological Survey of India which allowed Muslims to offer namaz within the Bhojshala complex.

The bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Keshwarwani in their order said,

"Counsel for the parties jointly submit that the similar issue is already under challenge in W.P.No.(s) 6514/2013, 1089/2016 and 28334/2019 pending before this court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed some more documents which are not available in those writ petitions strengthening the claim of this present petitioner. Therefore, they may be permitted to file this petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Since, a similar issue is under challenge and the Archaeological Survey of India is contesting the matter, therefore, the petition is admitted. Issue notice."