C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage.He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-.Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons.There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased.Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore.The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas.After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud.Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her.After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year .Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there.Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself.Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum.But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty.Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt.Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow.At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik.Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat.When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick.On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away.On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable.Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident.Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries.So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak.Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Civil Revision No.46/2017 15.03.2017 Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.None present for the respondent.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction.In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right.So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory.So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief.Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit.So suit is rejected.[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence.Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation.So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi.So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage.Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against this applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules.So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police.Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate.So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal.Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case.[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.After due consideration, prayer is allowed.She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) ns Judge M.A.No.2308/2014 15.03.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application.So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed.Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC.No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 338 days.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-.The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice.That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle.So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void.The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application.Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit.Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee.Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer.So the revision has no force.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine.Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora.so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents.Respondent tried to take her back but she refused.Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back.But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage.So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful.Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage.Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car.Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her.She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house.If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident.So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9484/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.163/2014 10.03.2017 Learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks time to file affidavit.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2535/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1357/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8915/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after three weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5654/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.164/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after second round.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.On 30.06.2016, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to cure the defects, but till today counsel for the applicant has not cured the defects.Today, none present for the applicant even after second round.It appears that applicant does not want to prosecute this petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.744/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.11/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.581/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Notice of respondents No.2 to 5 received unserved.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.431/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1271/2009 10.03.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant not received as yet.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report of bailable warrant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.54/2007 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1373/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1270/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T.No.344/2015, whereby learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC.[2] Brief facts which are relevant to this petition are that on 26.06.2015, at 11.30 p.m., when complainant Indersingh was satting on dice (chabutara) of Ram Mandir with his brother Liladhar and niece Dhirajsingh at Village Jabiya Gharwas, Kalapipal, applicants came there armed with farsi, lathi and rod and abused and beated Indersingh.Applicant Mansingh assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him while Mahendrasingh assaulted on his head by rod and Raghuveer Singh, Pappu and Santosh also beated him by lathi.When complainant's brother Leeladhar came to rescue him, Hindusingh also assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him and applicants Kapal Singh, Peer Singh and Raghuveer also beated him by lathi.Indersingh and Leeladhar sustained injuries on head and other body parts.On hearing hue & cry Praveen, Narendra Singh came there and tried to save them with the help of Dheerap Singh and admitted them in the hospital.On that report of injured Indersingh Crime No.250/2015 was registered at P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicants.On that charge-sheet ST No.344/2015 was registered and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur by order dated 05.08.2016 framed charges against applicants under 307/149 (in two counts) and 148 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injuries sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on any Wednesday after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2452/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.836/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9195/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.On 06.02.2017 none present for the applicant and today also none present for the applicant even after second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1143/2014 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant and respondent No.1, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garrage, on the way near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involving in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against which applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3984/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with status report after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply the copy of judgment of trial court to the counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file affidavit of technical person, who is aware of the technology relating to the working of computer.Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.10053/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1119/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12709/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch vide judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003 convicted the accused for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.Against that judgment applicant filed Cr.So, Jailor of District Jail, Neemuch be directed to release the accused.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during trial applicant remained in detention from 28.09.2005 to 05.03.2007 in other Sessions Case No.09/07 in Central Jail at Arthor Road Jail, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).No written information regarding that detention has been received as yet from the said Jail.So applicant could not be released.[6] Considering the aforesaid, the Jail Superintendent District Jail, Neemuch is directed that if the applicant Mohammad Iqbal has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003, excluding the period for which he was detained in other Special Sessions Case No.09/2007 then he be released, if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the petition is disposed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8748/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the non applicant.Heard finally at motion stage.[1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in brief "Code") against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.564/15; whereby learned Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and directed him to take cognizance against applicants for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC .[2] Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint against the applicants under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC alleging that the applicants had published defamatory news against the non- applicant/complainant.Being aggrieved from that order applicants have filed this petition.A copy of the order be sent to the Revisional Court as well as to the concerned Magistrate for compliance.Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ns M.Cr.C.No.2098/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for applicant on 06.05.2016, 16.07.2016 & 01.08.2016 and on 29.08.2016 applicant seeks adjournment, then on 06.09.2016 none present for the applicant, thereafter on 28.11.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017 none present for the applicant.On 31.01.2017 applicant seeks adjournment and today also none present for the applicant even in the second round.C.No.7084/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11666/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4259/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 28.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on that ground.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12041/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.C.No.13029/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel comes from Delhi and prays for a fixed date in the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.404/2017 07.03.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.410/2017 07.03.2017 Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.970/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Harshit sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.649/2007 07.03.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of respondent No.2 Dilip received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 28.04.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.400/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No.62/2016, whereby Learned A.S.J.framed charges against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC..[2] As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2015, at 5.30 p.m., when complainant Omprakash and his family members were working in the field situated at Rajgarh near National High Way 12, applicants came there armed with lathi and farsi and applicant Ramprasad assaulted Omprakash on his head by farsi with an intention to kill him while Hukum Singh assaulted on Omprakash's hand by lathi and Kanchanbhai by stone.When complainant's son Jaiprakash came to rescue him Ramprasad inflicted farsi blow on Jaiprakash's head and other applicants also beated them.On that report Crime No.617/2015 in P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh was registered under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the court and on the basis of charge-sheet S.T.No.62/2016 was registered and then learned A.S.J. framed charges against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants No.2 Kanchanbhai No.3 Hukum Singh & Vishram Singh under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the orders of framing charges under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC applicants have filed this Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report, injuries sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they have not received any bony injury, therefore, there is no evidence on record to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Omprakash and Jaiprakash received incised wounds by farsi on their head which is vital part of body.Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.[5] For framing of charge strong suspicion about commission of offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient.On merits, materials/documents filed by accused can not be considered.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns 07.03.2017 Order passed signed and dated.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce registration of vehicle and other necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal Case No.616/2013, which is disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar - Malwa by judgment dated 28.11.2016 before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.652/2006 06.03.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.869/2011 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file rejoinder.He is directed to file rejoinder positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 06.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.15/2016 06.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.702/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to produce the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.Office is directed to send back the record to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016 06.03.2017 Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 06.03.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.765/2001 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tulsibai before this court.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tulsibai.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.895/2000 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Karulal before this court.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Karulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9742/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard finally at motion stage.This leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.3517/2001, whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC.[2] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is clearly proved that at the time of accident respondent/accused rashly and negligently drove the vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-K-7976 and dashed against Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries and one of them died.From the statement of Tarachand (PW-2) it is also proved that at the time of accident vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar.So, learned trial court committed mistake in acquitting the accused Mazhar from the aforesaid charge.[3] On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is not proved that driver of the vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving said vehicle rashly and negligently, at the time of incident.Also it is not proved that vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was being driven by the respondent at the time of accident.Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that respondent Mazhar was the driver on said vehicle on the date of accident but he is not an eye witness of the incident so only on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and pray for rejection.[4] This court perused the record and considered arguments put forth by the parties.Hemsingh (PW-1) only stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed and dashed against the Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries but he did not specifically deposed in his statement that as to at what speed the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven at the time of accident.So, only on the basis of statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) that driver of vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident.Hemsingh (PW-1), who is an eye witness of the incident, did not even depose that the said vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, from his statement it is also not proved that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.[5] Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that on the date of accident respondent Mazhar was the driver on his vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 but he is not an eye witness, so without any other corroborating evidence merely on the basis of his statement it cannot be assumed that the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused from the aforesaid charge.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this order.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1558/2016 03.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.958/2017, which is an application for conversion of this Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After due consideration, application (IA No.958/2017) is allowed.Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After incorporation of necessary amendments, office is directed to register this Criminal Revision as a Criminal Appeal.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.397/2013 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellants/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2997/2013 and IA No.2998/2013 to the counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11362/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.221/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.537/2017 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of order-sheets of criminal case.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1783/2013 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.720/2014 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.R.No.1121/2016 03.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9384/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 13days.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7863/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8510/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9386/2016 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11943/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.679/2017 02.03.2017 Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.185/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.857/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Service report of respondent No.1 is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.9/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.Lower court record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2340/2014 02.03.2017 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 not appeared before the trial court and remained ex-party to the trial court.Service of notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1450/2015 02.03.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to verify the factum of death of applicant Mukesh.Office is also directed to call for report regarding death of applicant Mukesh from Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1575/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.555/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1103/2015 02.03.2017 Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.Status report of MJC (Criminal) Case No.15/2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas is still awaited.Office is directed to call the status report positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the status report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Session Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar rejected applicant's Criminal Revision No.111/2016 and maintained the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in Criminal Case No.49/2016, wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant for dishonor of cheque averting that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and out of that friendship when petitioner was in need of money, respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to him.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the cheque given by the petitioner was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.So action be taken against applicant.[3] During trial of the case applicant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. averting that though respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence regarding that amount so respondent be directed to file all documents relating to his income, expenditure and income tax return.In his reply respondent opposed the prayer.Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.09.2016 rejected that application observing that application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was not maintainable at that stage against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.111/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar observing that the impugned order was an interim order against which the Revision is not maintainable.Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner averting that respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the said cheque was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.Applicant wants to cross-examine the respondent on the point that whether respondent actually has the capacity to give Rs.20,00,000/- to the applicant for which documents regarding income and expenditure and his income tax return are required.so they be called from the applicant.Learned trial court committed mistake in rejecting his application.[5] It appears from the record that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant averting that applicant took Rs.20,00,000/- from him and to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.So prima facie burden for proving this fact lies on respondent and what documents he wish to file to prove this fact depends upon his will.In his application applicant has not mentioned the year/years for which he sought respondent's income tax return and regarding what documents or for what period he wants income and expenditure details of respondent.His application is vague, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.132/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1006/2016, which is an application for stay.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.805/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.933/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5, even after service of notice.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Soumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 01.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2266/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of statement of prosecutrix and wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1295/2012 01.03.2017 Shri R.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the report from the Central Jail, Indore regarding detention of appellant Hemu @ Hemant.Let the matter be listed in the next week along with the report.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3685/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.122/2000 01.03.2017 None present for the appellant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.On 13.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and 22.02.17 none present for the appellant even in the second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.212/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1595/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.R.No.214/2017 be listed along with this petition.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.214/2017 after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6381/2016 01.03.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1054/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.594/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Let the matter be listed after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to this petition are that, applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent before the J.M.F.C., Mahidpur, Ujjain averting that marriage of his daughter Heena was solemnized with respondent Firoz on 09.02.2013 at Mahidpur.In the marriage he gave jewellery, cloths, electric goods, almirah, fridge, T.V., washing machine, a cooler and other home appliances worth Rs.3,50,000/- to his daughter.On 20.04.2013, respondent Firoz gave divorce to his daughter Heena but he did not return the aforesaid house-hold goods, which he gave to his daughter as dowry at the time of marriage.That Revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur by order dated 12.05.2015 wherein it set aside the trial court's order observing that applicant's daughter Heena voluntarily left her matrimonial house in the night of 19.03.2013 and she clearly admitted in a letter that she does not want to live with respondent Firoz.She wanted to live with Nilesh Suryawanshi and also admitted that respondent Firoz Khan had voluntarily given divorce to her and she had received all house-hold goods which were given by her father as dowry.So offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent.Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed this petition.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad respondent himself promised to return the house-hold goods which were given by the applicant as dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but he did not do so.The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Revisional Court alleging given by Heena is fake.Learned A.S.J. committed mistake in rejecting the trial court's order by relying on that fake affidavit.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a list of articles which were given in dowry at the time of marriage should be made but there is no such list.On the contrary Heena at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad clearly admitted before the Police Officers that she got all articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage.So no question of returning the articles arises.Learned A.S.J. rightly rejected the applicant's prayer.[5] First of all applicant himself averted in the application that he gave house-hold goods and other articles to her daughter in her marriage.So those articles are the property of her daughter and not the applicant.According to Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under :-Section 6 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.--(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman-- --(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman--"(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage;(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; orAlong with the complaint applicant also filed a copy of the notice given by him to the respondent before filing of complaint wherein it is mentioned that a list of articles given to the respondent at the time of marriage was prepared, but no such list was produced by the applicant before the court.The complainant filed complaint against nine persons alleging that all of them received the gifts given to Heena at the time of marriage.It is incredible that all the nine persons together received the gift items while in the notice it is mentioned that all gifts were received by respondent Firoz which is contradictory so in the opinion of this court learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake in rejecting the trial court's order.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.224/2017 28.01.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Bail Application No.16/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Mohammad Zeeshan S/o Mohammad Anees under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.28/2017 registered at Police Station-A.J.K., Jhabua, District- Jhabua for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)On 24.01.2017, at 1.00 p.m., at Meghnagar Bus Stand, when she asked appellant to marry her, he refused and abused her and clearly stated that he can't marry her.When she told appellant that she will lodge a report, he threatened to kill her.The appellant filed Bail Application No.16/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for getting bail.Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua rejected that application.Being aggrieved appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant is major and she is a consenting party.She has wrongly lodged the report against the appellant.Appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, counsel prayed for grant of bail.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant/prosecutrix opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that complainant was minor at the time of starting of the incident and that appellant sexually exploited her for last two years on the pretext of marriage and pray for rejection.[5] Looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time and that on the date of lodging report prosecutrix was major so without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.[6] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cr.A. No.224/2017 is disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1176/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8886/2016, which is an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for service of summon on respondent No.3 by paper publication.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of summon on respondent No.3 has not been effected by ordinary process.So, summon be issued on respondent No.3 by way of publication.After due consideration, application is allowed.On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.3 by way of publication in the local newspaper published in the local area in Indore where respondent No.3 is said to be resided.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to supply copy of documents to respondents No.1 & 2, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.938/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.1640/2017, which is an application to add complainant Saradar Mohammad as party to the petition memo.After due consideration, application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.141/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12636/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.289/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Prafulla Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 28.02.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohara, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.75/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1706/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9548/2014 28.02.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.859/2016 28.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Matter is already admitted, therefore, let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 21.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1614/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2231/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondents No.1 to 7 is still awaited.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10576/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay fresh process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.113/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.214/2016 22.02.2017 Shri K.K. Koushal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2015, whereby he rejected the applicant's/defendent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.6-A/2015 before the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of applicant from the part of suit house and in alternative for seeking a declaration to declare them owner of that part of the suit house and also declaring that part of the suit house in dangerous state and that it be demolished after eviction of applicant averting that respondents are the owner of the suit house No.181 situated at Netaji Nagar, Indore.In the back side of the suit house No.181 two rooms and kitchen were built in 14x20=280 sq.ft.Area, which was given by the respondents on rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant in the year 1993 by an oral agreement.In the year 2010 Municipal Corporation also gave a notice to the respondents that the said construction is in dangerous state and can't be used for human dwelling.That being so, applicant was directed to give vacant possession of that part of suit house to respondents and pay arrears of rent.[3] During trial of the suit applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averting that the land of suit house was given to applicant's mother Munni Bai by the State Government on lease so the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act would not apply on the suit land.Respondents also did not file any documentary evidence showing that the respondent is owner while applicant is a tenant in his suit house, so respondents' suit is not maintainable.Even otherwise on one hand respondents filed a suit averting that applicant is a tenant in the suit house and for his eviction from the suit house and also for getting arrears of rent while on the other hand applicant sought that he be declared owner of the suit house and it be declared in a dangerous stage and a mandatory injunction be issued against the applicant to vacate the suit house which is contradictory so suit is not maintainable.[4] Learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that respondents sought contradictory relief.To decide other objections it requires evidence which cannot be decided at this stage.Being aggrieved of that order applicant filed this Revision.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court has committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application without appreciating the fact that the respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit and that without amending pleading of the suit, the same is not maintainable.[6] Respondents in their reply opposed the prayer.[7] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.Although it appears from the averment of the plaint that respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit but the suit cannot be rejected only on that ground that there is no such provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.Likewise the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that respondent has not filed any documentary evidence showing his ownership or landlordship over suit property.It is a matter of evidence so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant.Hence, the revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1397/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.As per office report, notice of respondent No.2 received unserved for want of correct address.Respondents No.1 and 3 are served.Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 15 days.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 4 on payment of process fee within 15 days, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 27.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to file copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.C.No.1704/2015 27.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.84/2016 27.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.231/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7096/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel along with Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.349/2017 27.02.2017 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.131/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1356/2014 27.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.857/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1283/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1518/2016 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1570/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7743/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8500/2016 27.02.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2143/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of whole complainant and copy of statement recorded by the trial court on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.375/2009 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing presence of respondent on furnishing correct particulars along with process fee within within 7 days, returnable within 8 weeks.Let the matter be listed after eight weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.621/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.627/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9393/2011 27.02.2017 Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1126/2007 22.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already suffered sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, he does not want to press his appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1029/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1266/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1901/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Tribhuvan Kulmi, learned counsel for the applicant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.By the common order dated 24.12.2016 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain decided Cr.R. No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.So office is directed to examine whether one single petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Five different Criminal Revisions.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1611/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in M.Cr.C.No.200/2015, whereby he allowed the application of respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.Applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns Rs.40,000/- per month.He also runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and earns Rs.30,000/- per month.He is also having 10 shops at Kota and earning Rs.50,000/- per month as rent from those shops and he is able to maintain his wife and children but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause, so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegations levelled by the respondents in his application and averted that he never demanded dowry from respondent No.1 and never harassed her.Respondent No.1 herself is voluntarily living with her mother without any cause.She is working as a Teacher in R.K.Academy, Biaora and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself and her children, while applicant is a Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns only Rs.17,685/- per month and his parents also depend on him.Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observed that respondent No.1 is having sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is not able to maintain herself and her children while applicant is able to maintain respondents but has refused to do so, therefore, he directed the applicant to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to each respondent.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[5] Only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side.He submits that it is clearly established from the evidence produced by the applicant that applicant earlier worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he left that job and presently has no means of earning so he is not able to maintain respondents.[6] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant himself in his reply admitted that he works as Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.17,685/- per month.The Certificate (Ex.D/1) filed by the applicant is not correct.It is clear from the record that applicant is having many means of earning.He runs one talkies and also has many shops in the market and earns much and is able to pay Rs.15,000/-maintenance as awarded by the learned Trial Court.[7] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.Learned trial court itself in Para 22 of its judgment held that applicant earns Rs.17,685/-per month as salary but it awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which is clearly on higher side.Although respondent No.1 Dipika Chourasiya deposed that applicant runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan).He is also having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) and also has one house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor, which earns him rent.But applicant in his statement clearly denied the fact that he runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) or has any house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor which earns him rent.[8] Respondents have not filed any document which shows that applicant possess the aforementioned immovable property.So respondents' statement that applicant is having the aforesaid immovable property and he is earning from that property does not appeared to be true.Likewise although respondent No.1 stated that applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and applicant also admitted in his reply that he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he got only Rs.17,685/- per month as salary from that job.Respondents have not filed any documentary evidence which shows that applicant's salary is Rs.40,000/- per month.[9] Although applicant in his statement deposed that earlier he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but form 15.11.2015 he has left his job and also filed Ex.D/1 resignation letter from that job.Applicant filed reply of respondents' application on 10.08.2015 in which he clearly admitted that he works at Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and got a salary of Rs.17,685/-.Although on the stage of his evidence on 18.11.2016 applicant filed Ex.D/1 showing that he resigned from the said service from 15.11.2015 but has not produced the person, who gave Certificate (Ex.D/1) in this regard, so this Certificate is not believable.Even otherwise it appears strange that he left his job at the time of evidence without any cause so it is incredible and does not appear to be correct.[10] So from the evidence produced by the parties applicant's income appears only as Rs.17,685/- per month.Learned trial court also in Para 22 of his judgment held that applicant's income is Rs.17,685/- per month.In these circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side looking to the income of applicant.So it is appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.[11] Hence, Revision is partly allowed and applicant is directed to pay a maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial court.Remaining conditions of the trial court's order shall remain same.Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of.as per rules.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6771/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.268/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1872/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1417/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1067/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.S.Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2016, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.R.No.1535/2016 22.02.2017 None for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5739/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Office to verify and thereafter list the matter in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 to 4 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.33/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.42/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.129/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Arti Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.238/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017 22.02.2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1338/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1245/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has filed copy of Handwriting Expert's report, alleged suicide note and copy of charge-sheet, which are taken on record.It appears that applicant has not filed whole copy of charge-sheet, so applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1549/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and also seeks time to produce the complainant before the court regarding compromise application.Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1042/2014 21.02.2017 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya tomorrow at 5.00 p.m.. Parties are also directed to co- operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya is directed to submit her report after mediation process.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017 along with the Mediator's report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 09.03.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1422/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10446/2016 21.02.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.108/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.881/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.249/2015 21.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.934/2015 21.02.2017 Shri R.K.Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.R.No.1069/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel from the applicant.Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Kaushiyal Malya, learned counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District - Rajgarh, in Criminal Case No.13/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Gopal S/o Shankarlal Jat under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station - Malawar, District - Rajagarh for the offence under Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(B)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (further refer as "Act").[2] As per prosecution story, on 30.08.2016, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal averting that appellant Gopal is threatening her since 1 years and keeps asking her to come to his field otherwise he would kill her husband.In the month of August, 2016 four days before Rakhi between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m., when she went in Gopal's field for taking kanda (dung cake) Gopal caught her and raped her and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody.She narrated the incident to her husband, who asked Gopal as to why he raped his wife, on which Gopal abused them and also tried to kill her husband.On this Police of P.S. A.J.K., Bhopal sent report to P.S. Malawar, Distt Rajgarh, where Police registered Crime No.184/2016 for the offence under Section 376, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and investigated the matter.During investigation it was found that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant Gopal.In these circumstances, Police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the court of Special Judge, Rajgarh.On that report Special Judge Rajgarh took cognizance against the appellant and registered Special Case No.13/2017 and issued arrest warrant for securing the presence of appellant in the case.Learned Special Judge also rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. observing that from the case diary it prima facie appeared that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and got FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) filed in this case using his influence.From the case diary, provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act get attracted.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant to harass him.During investigation, from the statement of prosecutrix herself it appeared that prosecutrix filed false report against him, so police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the crime.Learned Trial Judge wrongly took cognizance against the appellant and issued warrant and that provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted from the case diary and prayed for anticipatory bail.Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited.[9] So appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail, his appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh, in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued by the learned Special Judge Rajgarh or if he surrenders before Special Judge Rajgarh in S.T. No.13/2017 the present appellant namely Gopal Jat S/o Shankarlal Jat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Atrocity, Rajgarh.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Accordingly, Cr.C.No.583/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1053/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 03.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed 02.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on IA No.470/2017, which is an application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.After due consideration, application is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record of Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the applicants is also directed to file the copy of charge-sheet and present status of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file the reply of the petition on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.672/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2..Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10928/2015 20.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3552/2016 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.243/2014 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.239/2015 20.02.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.313/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1813/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.On 18.10.2016, learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment and on 31.01.2017 also none present for the applicant even in the second round.It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7539/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the status report of Crime No.161/2013 of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and case diary of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.793/2016 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1892/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1838/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per report of non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Jitendra Mukhi, appellant is in custody in District Jail Phulwani (Orisa).(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.348/2015 17.02.2017 Shri P.Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of appellant No.3 Mohan before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.532/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce applicant Sohan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the applicant Sohan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1020/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.284/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 17.02.2017 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the intervener.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.26/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1275/2016 17.02.2017 Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1331/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 17.02.2017 Shri V.Asava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11593/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.484/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.780/2017 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to verify the factum of death of applicant No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Khandelwal positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.3466/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 246 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.3466/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.Let the matter be listed for admission in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.825/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Suresh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant on 03.02.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10551/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Pawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.619/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006, whereby he rejected the applicant's prayer that since he has already undergone whole sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine so recovery proceedings be not carried out against the applicant.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque.On the complaint Criminal Case No.1801/2001 was registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and after trial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore found applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, against which applicant filed Cr.That appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by judgment dated 29.09.2004 and affirmed the order of Trial Judge, against which applicant has also filed Cr.No.777/2004 in this court which was also rejected by this court by order dated 24.08.2005 and the judgment of the Trial Judge became final.Applicant has undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.[3] After that respondent filed Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006 to procure the compensation amount from the applicant.During prosecution of this case applicant filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore averting that because applicant has undergone one month's RI in default of payment of fine so the recovery proceedings of compensation amount cannot be carried out against the applicant.[4] Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore rejected the prayer observing that even after undergoing the sentence in default of payment of compensation court issued recovery warrant against the applicant for recovering of compensation amount, against which applicant filed Cr.R. No.619/2016, which also was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this petition.[6] He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in Ramnath V/s.Jagdish Prasad Garg and another reported in 2000 Bank J. 29, in which court held that, "Petitioner having already undergone the punishment awarded minus the fine; petition becomes infructuous as no other mode of realisation of amount under criminal law is provided.Complainant may if he desires file civil suit for recovery."But in that case point whether the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and so recovery proceeding be not carried out was not in issue that Criminal Revision was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court against him.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision regarding this issue.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :Warrant for levy of fine.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.[7] Even in the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in Y.Vishnu V/s."Section 421 of Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine by one of the two ways or by both of them.The second mode of recovery is to issue a warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue.[8] So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in issuing recovery warrant to procure the fine amount from applicant.Hence, petition is rejected.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.466/2007 15.02.2017 Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.Heard on IA No.1084/2017, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7010/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file the reply of the petition.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the document within one week.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.28558/2014 pending before the learned ACJM, Indore be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.367/2017, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of trial court.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks, along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply.He is directed to file reply positively before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.161/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.861/2015 15.02.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.81/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.403/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Bherusingh is in jail and he wants time to file an appropriate application in this regard.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.474/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10571/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Case No.13654/2016 be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1723/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.837/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1410/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None present for the respondents No.2 to 5 even after second round.Heard on IA No.8314/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 287 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.8314/2015) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8642/2015 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2015 15.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.266/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 290 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.266/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.53/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1171/2016 15.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for admission along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C..During investigation it was found that applicant no. 1 and 2, are the parents in law of deceased and applicant no.3 is the wife of the deceased.she is also having one daughter Roshni aged 3 years.Due to some dispute between applicant no3 and deceased their matrimonial life got strained.So applicant no. 2 came to deceased's house at Alot and took applicant No. 3 and her daughter Roshni with him.He also left a suicide note.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.From the statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet, only allegation against the applicants was that applicant No.3 wanted deceased to live with her parents at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicant No.2 took his wife applicant No.3 and daughter with him to their house since deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.On that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.Applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 and her daughter Nine or Ten days before the incident.[7] In the matter of Babbi @ Jitendra V/s.Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable."[10] So in the considered opinion of this court evidence collected against the applicants by the prosecution are totally insufficient to infer that the applicants abetted for suicide, they may be cause for the suicide but not the abetted.Resultant, the petition is hereby allowed.The impugned order framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside.On the said refusal the applicant beat and threatened her.Then on 09.01.2013 she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant.On that report Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 294 and 506 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2130/2013 was registered before the J.M.F.C., Indore and J.M.F.C., Indore framed charges under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant and tried the matter.The case is pending for evidence before the trial court.Respondent did love marriage with applicnt and after marriage she never resided with the applicant.From the very same day she returned to Satwas.Before that report respondent also filed a report in Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that applicant solemnized temporary marriage with her and soon after the marriage applicant left her.She had lived with applicant only three hours after marriage then applicant left her.So there is no question of applicant's demanding money or torturing the respondent.The FIR lodged by the respondent is false.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the FIR prima facie case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out.On the charge-sheet learned trial court prima facie found that offence under Section 498A, 506 and 294 of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the applicant for those offences.So there is no question of quashment of criminal case.The respondent filed another application before the Mahila Thana averting that she only lived with the applicant for three hours after marriage is not a part of charge-sheet under which circumstances, that application is filed, is a matter of evidence.The application filed by the applicant along with petition is not a part of charge-sheet.The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.218/2012 14.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.None present for the respondent.Heard on IA No.997/2017, which is an application for taking legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal on record under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC.Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Death Certificate of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal along with the application.After due consideration, application is allowed.Legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal be taken on record.Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.The matter is already admitted for final hearing, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.619/2011 14.02.2017 Shri K.K.Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No.978/2017, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for legal representatives of respondent No.5 Narendra Kumar to be brought on record.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and also prays for a fix date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Bhagwan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant Bhagwan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2007 14.02.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.830/2013 14.02.2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of respondent Pradeep by order dated 03.02.2017 be recalled.Applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed along with the record for hearing on admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.126/2015 14.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.447/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Nana @ Dilip is not present.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of applicant Nana @ Dilip before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.822/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Section 421 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Warrant for levy of fine.(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.M.C.C.No.931/2016 14.02.2017 Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9418/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 5 days.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to calculation mistake he could not file the petition in time.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.After due consideration, application (IA No.9418/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned..The M.C.C. is for restoration of SA.No.68/2015, which has been dismissed on 27.10.2016 for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.10.2016 he was engaged on another board, therefore, he could not appear for arguments on 27.10.2016 and Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and SA No.68/2015 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.931/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.2/2001 13.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.728/2017 13.02.2017 Shri Amit bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1669/2013 13.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.664/2004 13.02.2017 Shri Bharat Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to secure presence of appellants Bhawla and Keru before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.69/2005 13.02.2017 Ms. Archna Jadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.158/2008 13.02.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent.Today both the parties submitted that new arbitrator Shri S.N.Sharma be appointed in place of Shri N.K.Porwal.Office is directed to take his consent for the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns NATIONAL LOK ADALAT 11.02.2017 Since settlement is not possible, therefore, the case is released from the National Lok Adalat.List the matter before the regular Bench.Criminal Revision No.981/2015 10.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Complaint No.26409/2015, whereby he took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 506 and 393 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents averting that on 30.01.2015, at 2.45 p.m., applicant went to Life Insurance Corporation's Office, Indore, where respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla abused and beated him and another 25-30 persons confined the applicant and respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla tried to loot money from applicant.On that applicant informed Aditya Garg on phone then he came there.Respondents No.1 Sunil Jhinjhore, No.2 Abdul Jalal Mulla and No.3 Bhupendra Rathore with the aid of other persons beated Aditya Garg also and tore his shirt.Applicant and Jitendra lodged report about the incident at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore but Police did not lodge the FIR.So cognizance under Section 294, 506, 323, 342 and 393 read with Section 34 of IPC be taken against the respondents.Learned trial court recorded statements of applicant and Aditya Garg under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C., then by order dated 01.07.2015 on the complaint took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 342, 506 and 393 of IPC against them.Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the complaint and statements given by the applicant and Aditya Garg (PW-2) offence under Section 393 and 506 of IPC is clearly made out.[4] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no prima facie evidence on record to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC, so learned trial court has not committed any mistake in not taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.[5] This court perused the record and arguments put forth by both the parties.[6] Applicant only deposed that at the time of incident respondent Sunil Jhinjhore, Abdul Jalal Mulla and Dilip Jain tried to snatch money from him and respondents also threatened to break his legs that if he lodged the report in Police, he would break legs and hand of him.Words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it is does not appear from the statement of complainant that complainant felt, as reasonable man, that the accused was going to convert his words in action, on the contrary complainant himself stated that after the threat of respondent to break his hands and legs if he lodged the complaint, he went to Police Station Tukoganj, for lodging the report which shows that respondent's threat caused no fear to complainant.So trial court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 506 of IPC, likewise complainant deposed that respondents tried to snatch money from him but it is not stated that from where respondents tried to snatch money either from his pocket or from his hand.Moreover he did not even disclose the amount he was carrying that respondents tried to snatch and where he kept that money.Due to this reason he committed suicide in his house.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison.The statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet.Only allegation against the applicants was that applicants want to deceased live with them at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicants took his wife and daughter with them in their house because deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants not sent their daughter with deceased, apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated the deceased.Only on the ground that applicants not sent their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide.He further submitted that as per prosecution case deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual for consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife and forcefully took with him.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee stated to deceased that if he leaves liquor and not ill treat her.Due to this reason Firoz has committed suicide, so as per whole charge-sheet there is no whisper of evidence collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of IPC and there is no evidence of any abetment or instigation for committing suicide found by prosecution.But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz himself in his letter mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants not sent her wife and daughter with him and applicants are liable for his suicide.So, there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and reject their prayer.[5] It appears from the record that only allegation against the applicants is that applicants who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased took their daughter with them and not sent with deceased Firoz on that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar V/s.State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) M.P.L.J. Page 195 in which this court held that, "Abetment to commit suicide - Proof - The act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC.It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.In the present case there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of applicant and the act of deceased of commission of suicide.Applicant is said to have entered the house in the night, but the deceased hanged herself in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. It appears that under great stress and depression and feeling ashamed by the conduct of applicant, she committed suicide.Apparently, the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against applicant merely on the ground that deceased felt ashamed by the said conduct of accused.However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of complainant in the night.from the time of quarrel - Act of did not fall within the ambit and scope of abetment as defined under Section 306 Penal Code - No prima facie case of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 Penal Code is made out - Order of trial Court directing framing of charge against set aside - Revision application allowed."(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge F.A.No.682/2015 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.The M.C.C. is for restoration of FA.No.322/2016, which has been dismissed on 20.07.2016 in compliance of peremptory order.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 20.07.2016 office-in-charge could not attend the office, so defect could not be cured, because of that FA no.322/16 was dismissed.His absence is bona fide, so FA No.322/16 be restored to its original position.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and F.A.No.322/2016 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.717/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.854/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.10019/2016, which is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to renew applicant's passport.The applicant, who is an MLA is required to travel abroad for many government official works, therefore, he may be permitted to renew his passport.Prayer is allowed with the condition that the applicant will not leave India without permission of this court.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.978/2016 10.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1185/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1431/2017 10.02.2017 Mrs.K.Mundra, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the applicant.The M.Cr.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1512/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.222/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State.None present for the respondent.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This matter has wrongly been listed today.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1136/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1138/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Record is not received as yet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1347/2015 09.02.2017 Shri Kantesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.306/2016 09.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.38/2017 09.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1445/2015 08.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in M.Cr.C.No.432/2014, whereby he allowed the application of respondent's filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are minor children of the applicant.Earlier they filled M.Cr.C.No.52/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant, In that case trial court vide order dated 19.05.2010 directed the applicant to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance for each of the respondents.On 04.12.2013, respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the awarded amount is not sufficent for maintaining them, so amount of maintenance be enhanced.Although applicant opposed the prayer but learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- for each of the respondent.Being aggrieved with the order applicant has filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that applicant is not able to give enhanced amount because his income is on lower side, on the contrary respondents are living with their mother and their mother running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she is able to maintain the respondents wrongly enhanced the amount of maintenance.[4] It is appeared from the evidence on record that applicant himself admitted that between the year 2010 to 2015 went inflation has doubled and also admitted that the respondents are gradually getting older so need of respondents are also growing.There is no reliable evidence on record which shows that mother of respondents is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.Although applicant deposed that he is a laborer and only earns Rs.4,500/- per month.but he also admitted that his mother having shop he works in the house of his mother.It is not believable that applicant is working as labourer in the house of her mother, so it appears that applicant for hiding his income wrongly deposed the facts.in these circumstances learned trial court has not committed any mistake in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Hence, the Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, the respondents had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (henceforth the code) in Criminal MJC No.21/1999 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch which was allowed and Respondent No.1was granted Rs.1300/- per month from 10.9.1996 and respondent No.2 was granted Rs.700/- per month from 10.9.1996 till attaining majority or till her marriage.This proceeding was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch.[3] The applicant raised the objection that respondent No.2 has become major so she has no right to get the maintenance.Even otherwise in view of section 125(3) of the code recovery of the amount should be confined to one year prior to filing of the application.The rest of the amount stands time barred in view of subsection (3) of section 125 of the code.[4] The Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch, by order dated 21.11.2015 rejected the applicant's objection by observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and she filed the application on 02.01.2013 within one year of attaining majority.So her application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.The applicant is bound to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 from 10.09.1996 to till attaining the age of majority and of her marriage.Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed Cr.R.No.1591/2015, which was decided by this court vide order dated 14.12.2016 and maintained the order of the trial court observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the revision filed before this court took an objection that respondent No.2 had become major before filing of execution but respondent No.1 Rashida filed an execution on behalf of respondent No.2 as guardian hiding the fact that she is a major.The minor could have filed an application within a year after attending majority and claimed maintenance from 1999 but the application was filed by her mother which cannot be filed after lapse of so many years.The application is time barred so impugned order may kindly be recalled.The application for getting maintenance was filed by both the respondents.Hence, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, along with the record.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 08.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 08.02.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1648/2015 07.02.2017 Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of statement of respondent Smt. Pooja Sarkar recorded by the trial court in MJC No.120/2015, which is taken on record.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.No.3881/2015, whereby applicant is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for getting maintenance from the applicant and also filed an application for getting interim maintenance during trial of the case.Learned trial court observing that respondent is the legally wedded wife of applicant and presently living separate from the applicant and it is the duty of the applicant to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that respondent voluntarily without any cause is living separately from the applicant, so she is not entitled for any maintenance.Even otherwise respondent helps her parents in business and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and she is able to maintain herself while applicant is unemployed and unable to give maintenance to the respondent.Thus, learned trial court has wrongly ordered the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that applicant without any cause refused to maintain the respondent.So learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It is admitted that respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and at present living with her parents.In that circumstances, respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.Whether respondent is voluntarily living separately from the applicant or she is able to maintain herself is a matter of evidence.It cannot be decided at this stage without evidence.Although applicant stated that he is unemployed presently and it is admitted that applicant is a Software Engineer.It is not the case of the applicant that he is unable to do work because of any inability.So under these circumstances, if learned trial court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case to the respondent, it cannot be said to be wrong.So, Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per report received of non-bailable warrant of appellant, Remsingh has died on 03.01.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Remsingh.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 Remsingh from appeal memo.Learned counsel for the appellants wants time to produce appellant No.2 Vinod before this court.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Vinod.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 07.02.2017 Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.998/16 in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1324/2017 07.02.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 07.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8654/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 23.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the court on the next date of hearing.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.846/2012 07.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016 positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1688/2014 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Sanjay before this court.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant Sanjay.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Chakrawarti Swami received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 30.03.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.3 Ramlal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1273/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.After due consideration, application (IA No.9277/2016) is allowed.Appellant is directed to change his appeal into leave to appeal.Necessary amendments be carried out.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 28.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.89/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Heard finally at motion stage.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No.30-A/2014 before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda against the respondents for declaring him owner of suit land and restraining the respondent to interfere in his possession in the suit land.For setting aside that judgment and decree respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 01.09.2015 before the trial court and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application before the trial court.In reply applicant opposed the prayer.But Learned trial court allowed the application observing that the disposal of case should be on merits and not only on technical grounds.Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court wrongly allowed the application of respondents without giving an opportunity for producing evidence.[4] It appears from the record that the applicant in his reply opposed the prayer of respondents.The application filed by the respondents is also time barred and respondent also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.In that circumstances it is the duty of the court to give opportunity to the parties to give evidence in support of their contentions.Learned trial court without giving proper opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions decided the application, which cannot be said to be correct.Thereafter, give an opportunity to the applicant for rebuttal and then again decide the application on merits.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned First A.S.J., Mandleshwar in Special Case No.18/2013, whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant Nawal Singh for further cross-examination.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe from complainant Naval Singh for correcting entries of revenue record.[3] During trial of the case on 22.09.2015 applicant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. averting that according to the information received by the applicant from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone complainant did not file any application before the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone for correcting the revenue entries and procuring new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika.So, he wants further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[4] Respondent in his reply opposed the prayer and averted that from the documents produced with charge-sheet it is clear that the work of complainant was pending before the applicant at the time of incident and pray for rejection.[5] Learned trial court rejected his application observing that earlier also applicant had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2015 which was rejected by this court.Applicant again filed the application on the same ground.There is no need to recall the complainant for re-examination and that applicant is free to file document in his defence.Being aggrieved from this applicant has filed this petition.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial for allegedly demanding and taking illegal gratification for correcting revenue entries of complainant's land and issuing new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika while the information received from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone after completion of examination of complainants Naval Singh (PW1) before trial court shows that no such work of complainant was pending before the revenue authority at the time of incident.So it is essential to cross examine the complainant on the point on the basis of information received.The trial court wrongly rejected his application for further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has filed this application only for delaying the trial.Learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer.At that time trial court gave full opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant.Applicant himself averted in the petition that he received the information on 11/11/14 while applicant filed the application for further cross examine the complainant before trial court on 03/06/15, almost seven months after receiving the information.Applicant also had full opportunity to file the said documents in his defence.So trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Criminal Revision No.1422/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent.Applicant and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for taking her back.Aggrieved by such behaviour of the applicant and his family members respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of conjugal rights.Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's petition.In compliance of that order applicant took the respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his behaviour with the respondent remained same but after sometime he left the respondent at her parental house.Then respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police Station Malharganj.On the report Crime No.251/2013 was registered, which is already pending against the applicant.Applicant is also having business of selling milk and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent, but has refused to maintain the respondent without any sufficient cause.So, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him and averted that family members of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that she is handicapped .Also, at the time of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage with respondent is void.Applicant never demanded any dowry and never harassed the respondent.Respondent made false allegation in this regard in her application.Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to maintain herself, while applicant earns only Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain respondent and prays for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties allowed the application of respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this revision.[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent due to which because applicant was debarred from his right.It is also proved from the evidence that respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped.Since applicant was minor at the time of marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void.In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim maintenance.Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in 10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum.Trial Court without appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-.There is no need for interference in that order and pray for rejection of the petition.[8] The court perused the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It appeared from the record that learned Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014 respondent and her brother was present in the court for giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine.On that date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the respondent whereupon trial court gave one more opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time to cross-examine the respondent.Then Trial Court closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct.Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the marriage void on that ground then and there.[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor is not void.It is not the case of applicant that he after attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the marriage on that ground.[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage she lived with the applicant for three years but after that applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her back.Then she filed the petition before the Family Court.On the order of Family Court applicant took her but after one & half year applicant again left her in her parental home.Since then respondent is living with her father.The statement of respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep (PW-2).Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant as his wife.Applicant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to keep respondent with him.[12] Respondent also deposed that she is handicapped and she has no earning.Although applicant stated that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but respondent clearly denied this fact.Applicant did not produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause.In these circumstances respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned.It appears from the record that learned trial court on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5 that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni.So the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on the higher side.It is appropriate to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-per month.Remaining conditions of the trial court order shall remain the same.The revision is disposed of accordingly.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.135/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.193/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent No.9/State.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.861/2016 06.02.2017 Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application before the Juvenile Justice Board .Prayer is accepted.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in the Nationalized Bank.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him Rs.4,25,000/-.The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same.[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her application.Hence, the Revision is allowed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.134/2017 03.02.2017 None present for the applicant.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.351/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.74/2015 03.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 180 days.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.765/2014 03.02.2017 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Respondent wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 02.02.2017 Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - present in person.None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even after service of notice.seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.793/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the .Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four weeks time to file reply.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.226/2012 02.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.663/2013 02.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1115/2016 01.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Abid.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Appellant Abid has been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016, at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju (PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal with their weapons with an intention to kill them.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.Since co-accused Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case, therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to get bail.Hence application for suspension of sentence be allowed.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.This Court has carefully gone through the case and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this court.It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun in his legs.Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun.He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal.According to the postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.The appeal is barred by 2,283 days.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.183/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two months.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.159/2015 01.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce the applicant Javed before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1765/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.53/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.94/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Office is directed after curing the defect record be called.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.160/2006 01.02.2017 Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC against the on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016, respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant.Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at Sagar.Earlier also she had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised with the applicant and started residing with him and she also got the case disposed of in compromise.But, applicant again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house.Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore.On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73, Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her.On that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant.After investigation charge- sheet was filed.Being aggrieved with the FIR applicant has filed this application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and after some time she compromised with the applicant and again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false report against the applicant.Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha herself tortured the applicant by her act.Earlier respondent No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with consent.But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce papers signed from her.So, this report be quashed.[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the court.Let the matter be listed after two months.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.813/2016 31.01.2017 Dr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.261/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1468/2013 31.01.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even after service of notice.As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1691/2016 31.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the chargesheet has already been filed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2015 31.01.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.[2] It is appeared from the record that on 11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that complainant/respondent and s No.1 to 3 admit that they amicably settled their dispute.It appears from the record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled between the parties.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record from the Family Court, Neemuch.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after receiving of the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.39/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the appellant even after service of notice.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.Let the matter be listed after six weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1287/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court regarding amount.Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1376/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing petition.After due consideration, application (IA No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.A.No.1735/2016 27.01.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.C.No.13007/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed along with MCC No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.106/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call the report from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014 27.01.2017 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 &Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.776/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Applicant is also directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.981/2015 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1370/2015 27.01.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015 27.01.2017 Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell, District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.165/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain stayed till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.224/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.966/2001 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the sole appellant Rajesh.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 25.01.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is dismissed as withdrawn.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.151/2014 25.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.475/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice.In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1017/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.9982/2016 after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.595/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report along with the record on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.300/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1133/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.85/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondents No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent No.6 not received yet.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to service on respondents by hamdast mode.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.460/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal memo notice not issued to the respondents.is directed to produce the copy of appeal memo within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1460/2010 24.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1025/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Naushad received unserved.Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1497/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent.By way of last indulgence, time is given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to pay process fee.Prayer is accepted.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1761/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1634/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2017 24.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.849/2017 24.01.2017 Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was filed as "Civil First Appeal" under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC.It should have been filed as a "Miscellaneous Appeal" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC.So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.Amendment be carried out within three days.Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.125/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1135/2015 24.01.2017 Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide mistake the counsel for the applicant could not appear at the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original position.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.C.No.422/2017 23.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.58/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.104/2017 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.One month's time is granted to pay remaining court fees.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.396/2014 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.5/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.454/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.726/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.765/2016 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.864/2016 23.01.2017 Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.201/2006 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable warrant.Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016 in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on the said date.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on 05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non- bailable warrant is recalled.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.746/2013 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, notice of respondent No.1 received unserved in absence of correct address.Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2675/2013 23.01.2017 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.None present on behalf of the respondent though served.The appeal is already admitted.List for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.246/2015 23.01.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Appellant Abdul is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.475/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.No one is present on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of notice.Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed.Applicant is directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal memo.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.725/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.None present for the respondent.Service report of respondents is awaited.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC No.39/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.C.C. No.42/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.84/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.125/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.144/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.146/2017 20.01.2017 Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.67/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.75/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.109/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.He is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.654/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, which is an application for stay.Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants.He prays that the further proceedings before the trial Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants, it be recalled.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.680/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.698/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.List after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.755/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.78/2014 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR.No.93/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.100/2016 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent, even in second round.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.214/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.535/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.539/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file compliance report.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.581/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received unserved with a note that they are not residing at given address.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.628/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016 20.01.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016 20.01.2017 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.29/2017 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.77/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi F.A No.123/2005 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.He is directed to file positively on next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.513/2010 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/State.After due consideration, application is allowed.Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo.Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.Office is directed to call for the record.Office is also directed to send reminder.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment will be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1384/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to respondent, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.44/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the State is directed to produce case- diary before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.824/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the respondent.In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1029/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondent received unserved.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF within seven days.On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent within one week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code