{"id":49156,"date":"2011-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-28T00:19:13","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T18:49:13","slug":"ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR\n                              Cr.R.No. 1501\/2011\n                                 Ramlal Athya\n                                       Vs.\n                                  State of M.P\n\n\nFor the Applicant      : Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate.\nFor Respondent         : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA.\n\n\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                                  (16\/11\/2011)
\nPer : U.C.Maheshwari J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The applicant\/accused, has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order<\/p>\n
dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Ist A.S.J. Sagar in S.T No.391\/10 framing the<\/p>\n
charges against him for the offence of section 420 read with section 34, 467 read<\/p>\n
with 34 and 468 read with section 120-B of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 13.6.08, at police<\/p>\n
out-post Shahpur, a letter signed by J.P.Sen,Chief Municipality Officer, Shahpur,<\/p>\n
was received contending that the State Govt. implemented a scheme named of<\/p>\n
“National Family Relief Fund” for the persons who are living below poverty line,<\/p>\n
according to which, on death of Karta of the family, Rs.10,000\/-, is given to the<\/p>\n
successor of such Karta. On 26.11.07, one Smt Phoolabai alias Kamalrani w\/o<\/p>\n
Bhujbal had got the death certificate of her alive husband Bhujbal Sour S\/o<\/p>\n
Kashiram by adopting the wrong process and contrary to the procedure.<\/p>\n
Subsequent to it, on dated 27.11.07, said Phoolabai filed another application<\/p>\n
contending that her husband said Bhujbal Sour, whose name was stated in<\/p>\n
S.No.2469 in the list of the persons being under below poverty line, has passed<\/p>\n
away with a prayer for giving the sum under the aforesaid scheme.              Said
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
application was forwarded by C.M.O to Branch Assistant Ramlal Athya, the<\/p>\n
applicant herein for appropriate proceedings. Such application was filed in a<\/p>\n
prescribed form in which some of the information was filled by the Ward Member<\/p>\n
Prem Rani. After processing the application, the Branch Assistant produced such<\/p>\n
form before him, on which, he placed the same in the meeting of Municipality. In<\/p>\n
the meeting dated 28.12.07, in presence of said Member Premrani, such<\/p>\n
application was allowed.     Pursuant to that, through cheque dated 31.1.08,<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- was given to said Phoolabai under the aforesaid scheme.          After<\/p>\n
disbursement of such sum, the office of said C.M.O came to know from news<\/p>\n
paper that said Bhujbal did not die and was still alive but with the assistance of<\/p>\n
official of Nagar Panchayat, said Phoolabai, by practicing fraud with personation<\/p>\n
got the fabricated death certificate of Bhujbal and on that basis, the above<\/p>\n
mentioned sum of the Govt. Fund (scheme), was taken by her under wrong<\/p>\n
premises, on which, by passing the resolution No.4 dated 23.5.08 by the Nagar<\/p>\n
Panchayat the decision to get register the offence was taken. It was also revealed<\/p>\n
that subsequent to obtaining the aforesaid cheque, by supplying wrong<\/p>\n
information to the Bank, she opened the account and got the cheque encashed. On<\/p>\n
the aforesaid information, prima facie offence of section 420,467,468,409 read<\/p>\n
with section 34 were made out, on which, Crime No.0\/08 was registered at Police<\/p>\n
outpost Shahpur and the same was sent to P.S. Sanodha for registration of regular<\/p>\n
crime where on dated 28.6.08, the offence was registered as Crime No.120\/08. In<\/p>\n
the course of the investigation, various papers including the papers showing that<\/p>\n
said Bhujbal is alive, the application submitted by accused Phoolabai in the office<\/p>\n
of the Nagar Panchayat Shahpur, proceedings of Nagar Panchayat were seized.<\/p>\n
The case diary statements of various witnesses including the aforesaid Bhujbal,<\/p>\n
the alive husband of accused Phoolabai, were recorded. In investigation it was
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
also revealed that the present applicant Ramlal Athya being branch Assistant<\/p>\n
working in the office of Nagar Panchayat Shahpur, was also involved with the<\/p>\n
accused Phoolabai in the criminal conspiracy and committed such offence.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to which the application for aforesaid scheme was processed and said<\/p>\n
accused had received the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000\/- by submitting the forged<\/p>\n
and fabricated document and also by practicing the fraud with personation and<\/p>\n
concealing the fact that her husband is alive. On completion of the investigation<\/p>\n
along with the aforesaid main accused Phoolabai, the applicant was also charge<\/p>\n
sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
3.     After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the papers<\/p>\n
of the charge sheet on framing the charges of section 420\/34,467\/34 and 468\/120-<\/p>\n
B of the IPC against the present applicant, he abjured the guilt and thereafter being<\/p>\n
aggrieved by such order has come forward to this court with this revision with a<\/p>\n
prayer to discharge him from said charges.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Shri Vijay Nayak, learned appearing counsel of the applicant after taking<\/p>\n
me through the papers of the charge sheet including the FIR and the interrogatory<\/p>\n
statements of the witnesses, said that mere perusal of such papers, it is apparent<\/p>\n
that the impugned application was neither prepared nor anything was done in it by<\/p>\n
the present applicant.    The same was submitted in the office of the Nagar<\/p>\n
Panchayat before the C.M.O by the aforesaid accused Phoolabai with her<\/p>\n
signature and other necessary requisites. As per requirement of the Rules of such<\/p>\n
scheme some information in such form were filled-up by Premrani, the ward<\/p>\n
member of such Nagar Panchayat. As per the available record of the charge sheet,<\/p>\n
after filing the aforesaid application by co-accused Phoolabai in the office of the<\/p>\n
CMO, the same was forwarded to the applicant to process the same and the<\/p>\n
applicant has carried-out his duty to process and prepare the matter for placing it
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
before the meeting of Nagar Panchayat and same was placed by the CMO in the<\/p>\n
concerned meeting of Nagar Panchayat in which the resolution, accepting such<\/p>\n
application was passed. In such situation, it would not be inferred that at any<\/p>\n
stage of the matter, the applicant had assisted Phoolabai either in obtaining the<\/p>\n
fabricated forged and false document or in practicing the alleged fraud with<\/p>\n
personation or otherwise for obtaining the sum of the aforesaid scheme.<\/p>\n
According to his submission, there is no prima facie evidence in the charge sheet<\/p>\n
showing the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence or it’s<\/p>\n
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Phoolabai and by placing his reliance on<\/p>\n
a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra-2002(2) SCC 135 prayed for discharging the applicant from the<\/p>\n
alleged charges by admitting and allowing this revision.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments, I have<\/p>\n
carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet placed on the record as well<\/p>\n
as the impugned order and the charges framed by the trial court. It is apparent<\/p>\n
from the FIR that Phoolabai alias Kamalrani w\/o Bhujbal Sour had filed the<\/p>\n
application in the office of CMO of Nagar Panchayat Shahpur stating that her<\/p>\n
husband Bhujbal Sour passed away. The death certificate of her alive husband<\/p>\n
was also obtained by her under the wrong process and contrary to the prescribed<\/p>\n
procedure. Some requisite information was filled-up in the form by the elected<\/p>\n
ward member with her signature. After receiving such application, said CMO has<\/p>\n
directed and handed-over the same to the present applicant to process and prepare<\/p>\n
the same for placing in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat for its approval to pay the<\/p>\n
requisite sum under the aforesaid scheme. In such premises while processing such<\/p>\n
application, the applicant was duty bound to verify the fact, whether said Bhujbal<\/p>\n
Sour had passed away or not ? It appears from the charge sheet that without
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
verifying such information, the present applicant with the connivance of said<\/p>\n
Phoolabai placed the matter before the CMO and such act was committed by the<\/p>\n
applicant without verifying the information regarding death of said Bhujbal from<\/p>\n
the concerned record of Nagar Panchayat in which the birth and death are<\/p>\n
registered.    In such premises it appears that inspite knowing the fact that<\/p>\n
Phoolabai had filed the claim under the aforesaid scheme on the basis of false and<\/p>\n
fabricated document, obtained by practicing fraud and personation stating her<\/p>\n
alive husband to be a dead person, while the applicant has processed the matter<\/p>\n
and involved himself in such criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused of the<\/p>\n
case for the reasons best known to the applicant and other co-accused which is yet<\/p>\n
to be examined by the trial court after recording the evidence.<\/p>\n
6.     It is settle proposition of the law that whenever on the basis of the evidence<\/p>\n
collected by the investigating agency and placed on the record along with the<\/p>\n
charge sheet if slight prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence are made out<\/p>\n
against the accused like the applicant then there is no option with the trial court<\/p>\n
except to frame the charge of the alleged offence. In the light of this proposition<\/p>\n
of the law, on examining the papers of the charge sheet, it is apparent that<\/p>\n
Phoolabai in the life-time of her husband Bhujbal with the assistance of official of<\/p>\n
Nagar Pancyayat, obtained his aforesaid death certificate by personation and<\/p>\n
practicing the fraud and on that basis filed the application for extending her the<\/p>\n
benefit of above mentioned scheme. It is also apparent that knowing all such<\/p>\n
things without verifying from the record such application, being official of the<\/p>\n
Nagar Panchayat, was processed by the applicant along with some other person of<\/p>\n
his office. Accordingly applicant involved himself not only in processing the<\/p>\n
application but also facilitated the co-accused in committing the alleged offence of<\/p>\n
practicing fraud with personation and fabricating the false document. In such
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
premises, prima facie it would be deemed that applicant involved himself with<\/p>\n
Phoolabai in her criminal conspiracy for committing the alleged offence.<\/p>\n
7.       So far the case law cited on behalf of the applicant Dilawar Balu (supra) is<\/p>\n
concerned, the same being distinguishable on facts and principle both with the<\/p>\n
present matter is not helping to the applicant. Such case was decided in some<\/p>\n
different scenario and also taking into consideration the provision of section 5(2)<\/p>\n
of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is not the situation in the case at hand.<\/p>\n
So, the applicant could not be benefited on the basis of such citation.<\/p>\n
8.       Apart the above, by referring the case diary statements of some witnesses it<\/p>\n
was argued by the applicant’s counsel that no witness has stated anything against<\/p>\n
the applicant implicating him with the alleged offence, therefore, in such<\/p>\n
premises, also the charge could not be framed against the applicant is concerned, it<\/p>\n
is suffice to say that at the initial stage of sending the report in writing by the<\/p>\n
CMO to the police, the averments regarding involvement of the applicant with the<\/p>\n
alleged offence are stated. Such fact is yet to be examined and appreciated by the<\/p>\n
trial court after recording the evidence.       Without recording the evidence and its<\/p>\n
appreciation, the aforesaid averment of the FIR and other available prima facie<\/p>\n
evidence in the charge sheet against the applicant could not be ignored at the stage<\/p>\n
of framing the charge. Besides this, it is apparent from the case diary statement of<\/p>\n
Bhujbal that he was alive on the date of filing the application by Phoolabai and<\/p>\n
also at the time of processing the same by applicant. In such premises also, the<\/p>\n
applicant does not deserve to be discharged from the charges framed by the trial<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
9.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that keeping in view all the<\/p>\n
aforesaid circumstances, the trial court has rightly framed the charges against the<\/p>\n
applicant for the aforesaid offence and therefore the impugned order does not
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this court.<\/p>\n
Consequently, this revision, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the<\/p>\n
initial stage of motion hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               (U.C.Maheshwari)
\n                                                     Judge
\nMKL
\n 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1501\/2011 Ramlal Athya Vs. State of M.P For the Applicant : Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA. ORDER (16\/11\/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1920,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011"},"wordCount":1920,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011","name":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T18:49:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-kumar-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay Kumar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}