Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

41 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

BRATHI ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1990 INSC 33231 October 1990Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh and his uncle Teja Singh were tried for the murder of Socha Singh under IPC sections 302 and 34. The trial court acquitted Teja Singh but convicted Sukhdev Singh, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court re‑examined the evidence, held that the acquittal of Teja Singh

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusP. T. APPAIAH AND ANOTHER

1980 INSC 16728 August 1980Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the acquittal of P.T. Appaiah and another, who had been convicted by a Sessions Judge for murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction but was split on whether the offence was murder or culpable homicide. Under s.429 of the Code of

P.C. MISHRAversusSTATE (C.B.I.) & ANR.

2014 INSC 21527 March 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an application by the CBI for a pardon under s.306 CrPC in a corruption investigation where the offence was triable by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted the pardon to the co‑accused during the investigation, a decision later challenged b

DAGADUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1981 INSC 7524 March 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Dagadu was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court dismissed his first appeal summarily, using only the word "rejected" and providing no reasons. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's power under CrPC s.384 (formerly s.421) to dismiss appeals sum

CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 54022 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants, a mother‑in‑law and her son‑in‑law, were convicted under Section 498‑A of the IPC for cruelty to a woman and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. They sought to replace the imprisonment with an enhanced fine, but the court held that fine cannot substitute imprisonment under Section 498‑A. The pr

SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGALversusUSHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR.

1986 INSC 12621 May 1986Dismissed

Three Army officers were charged with offences under Section 52 of the Army Act, 1950, which can be tried either by an ordinary criminal court or a court‑martial. They were tried before a Special Judge of the Fourth Additional Special Court, Calcutta, but the trial judge did not follow the Criminal Courts and Court Mar

RAMESAN (DEAD) THROUGH LR. GIRIJA AversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2020 INSC 6621 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Ramesan was convicted under Sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh for each charge. He appealed the conviction, but died while the appeal was pending. The Kerala High Court held that the imprisonment portion of the sentence became unworkable du

K. PRABHAKAR HEGDEversusBANK OF BARODA

2025 INSC 99719 August 2025Disposed off

K. Prabhakar Hegde, a former officer of Vijaya Bank (later merged with Bank of Baroda), was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in approving temporary overdrafts. He challenged the denial of the preliminary inquiry report, the failure of the Inquiry Officer to generally question him as r

NAIB SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

1983 INSC 4119 April 1983Dismissed

Naib Singh, originally sentenced to death for murder, had his sentence commuted to "imprisonment for life" and had served 22 years (including remissions). He claimed that life imprisonment could not be executed in Indian jails and that, after serving 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, he should be released absent a for

SANJEEV KAPOORversusCHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS.

2020 INSC 21519 February 2020Dismissed

The husband and wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, which the Family Court disposed of by a settlement order directing monthly maintenance and a mutual consent divorce. The husband paid only four months' maintenance; the wife filed an execution petition which was rejected as the order was d

STATE OF U.P.versusRAM BABU MISRA

1980 INSC 2919 February 1980Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh investigated Ram Babu Misra for offences under Sections 120‑B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate to order the accused to provide a specimen writing for comparison with disputed documents. The magistrate refused, holding that Section 73 of the Evidence Act did not em

STATE OF GOAversusJOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES

2017 INSC 77618 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa filed a complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC alleging that a prosecution witness, Jose Maria Albert Vales, gave false testimony under oath in a Sessions trial, constituting an offence under Section 193 IPC. The trial magistrate, without conducting a full inquiry, framed a charge against Vales. The H

V. KALYANASWAMY (D) BY LRS. & ANR.versusL. BAKTHAVATSALAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 45517 July 2020Dismissed

The case involves a property dispute between the branch of Lakshmiah Naidu (respondents) and legatees under a Will (appellants) of Rangaswami Naidu, who died on 01.06.1955 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellants claimed that Rangaswami Naidu had severed the joint family status through a newspaper notice a

KAPOOR CHAND MAGANLAL CHANDERIAversusDELHI STATE (ADMINISTRATION)

1985 INSC 9116 April 1985Case Allowed

Kapoor Chand, a British citizen of Indian origin, entered India with a car under the Carnet de Passage convention and later sought an import licence, altering an affidavit by changing "for three years" to "permanently". He was prosecuted under IPC s.420 read with s.511 (cheating) and related forgery provisions, despite

MONDRI SREENUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2008 INSC 115715 October 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Montri Sreenu, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his mother‑in‑law, Batta Chandramma. The prosecution relied on the appellant’s confession before a magistrate, extra‑judicial confessions to witnesses, recovery of a stone and stick allegedly used as weapons, and medica

ABHILASHAversusPARKASH & ORS.

2020 INSC 54615 September 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Abhilasha, a Hindu daughter, challenged a lower court order that limited her maintenance from her father, Parkash, to the period until she attained majority, arguing that under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 she could claim maintenance until she marries. The Supreme Court

BEOPAR SAHAYAK (P) LTD. & ORS.versusVISHWA NATH & ORS.

1987 INSC 16815 July 1987Dismissed

The appellant, Beopar Sahayak Ltd., sought possession of leased premises, but the respondents obtained a release order under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, issued by a Prescribed Authority who was an Executive Magistrate. The appellant challenged the order on

ZAHID HUSSEIN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2001 INSC 14715 March 2001Case Allowed

Four life convicts who had served more than 18 years (over 24 years including remission) filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the State Government's refusal to grant them premature release. The petitioners argued that, under Rule 591(29)(4) of the West Bengal Rules for Superintendence and Management of Jai

LAXMAN NASKAR ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 6915 February 2000

The petitioners, all serving life sentences, had completed twenty years of continuous detention including any remission and sought premature release under the West Bengal Rules. Their applications were rejected by the Government of West Bengal primarily on police objections concerning the likelihood of reoffending. The

SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHANversusHAFIZUNNISA YASINKHAN & ANR.

1981 INSC 16414 September 1981Dismissed

SirajMohammedKhan appealed against a judgment granting his wife, Hafizunnisa, maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The wife had proved that the husband was impotent and therefore unable to fulfil his marital obligations, and she refused to cohabit with him. The trial magistrate held

OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 77713 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant lodged an FIR alleging that his brother was murdered in Firozabad and that a separate FIR was falsely registered in Gwalior to provide an alibi for the main accused. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against several police officials, holding that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was re

SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.

2024 INSC 40713 May 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a deliveryman, complained that gold bars received in exchange for gold chains were counterfeit, leading the police to freeze the accused's bank accounts. The police reported the seizure to the jurisdictional magistrate only after a delay, and the Madras High Court ordered de‑freezing on the ground that t

SARABJIT RICK SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA

2007 INSC 127212 December 2007Dismissed

The United States requested the extradition of Sarabjit Rick Singh on drug‑trafficking and money‑laundering charges, and the Indian government directed an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under the Extradition Act, 1962. Singh challenged the magistrate’s order, arguing that the documents s

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSK. BANNU AND SHANKAR

1980 INSC 18012 September 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra prosecuted Sk. Bannu, Shankar and Mohammad Nazir for forging a bail bond and affidavit in a bail application filed under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The first magistrate who granted bail later transferred the case to another magistrate, who, after discovering the forgery, filed a complaint unde

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusLAL SINGH KISHAN SINGH

1980 INSC 15012 August 1980Dismissed

The State of Gujarat appealed a High Court order that quashed a circular directing police not to grant bail to persons arrested under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The respondents were arrested by a Sub‑Inspector on a warrant issued under section 6 of the Act and were denied bail by the pol

RAVINDER SINGHversusSUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.

2013 INSC 3011 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Ravinder Singh, owner of agricultural land, filed two criminal writ petitions seeking to quash FIRs filed by Sukhbir Singh. The second petition was filed without disclosing the earlier one, leading to a contempt proceeding which the High Court closed after the counsel apologized. Sukhbir Singh then lodged a criminal co

SUBHASH CHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1988 INSC 211 January 1988Dismissed

Subhash Chand, an adolescent convicted of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking detention under the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926, relying on Hava Singh v. State of Haryana. The State opposed, arguing that the Act does not apply to offences punishable with

S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C

2024 INSC 73210 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, obtained a maintenance order of Rs.12,000 per month and Rs.1,00,000 compensation under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2015. The respondent husband later filed an application under Section 25 seeking to set aside that order and to recover all maintenance

SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 60110 September 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sunil Damodar Gaikwad, murdered his wife and two sons and attempted to kill his daughter, later reporting the incident to police. He was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 307 and sentenced to death for the murder and life imprisonment for the attempt. The appeal centered on whether the death sentence

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ASSAM

2004 INSC 51310 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a Guwahati High Court decision that held all offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 to be bailable. The Supreme Court examined the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Act and clarified that it merely gives the railway officer two options—admit to bail or forwa

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off

The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court

VIJAY KUMAR PRASADversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 2427 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The father filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance against his son in the Siwan court. The son, who was practicing and residing in Patna, applied for transfer of the case, arguing that Siwan lacked jurisdiction because the maintenance respondent lived elsewhere. The High Court rejected the transf

V.K. AGARWAL, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSversusVASANTRAJ BHAGWANJI BHATIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 997 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia and others for possession of primary gold under the Customs Act, 1969 (Sec. 111 read with Sec. 135); one respondent was convicted and two were acquitted. The same authorities later sought to prosecute the three respondents under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Sec. 85) for

JAMIN & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 3306 March 2025Dismissed

The appellants Jamin and Akil were summoned as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC after the original murder trial had concluded and the co‑accused were convicted. They challenged the summoning order, arguing that the trial court could not entertain a Section 319 application after the trial and that the High Court ha

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.versusBHOLA @ BHAIRON PRASAD RAGHUVANSHI

2003 INSC 666 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, State of Madhya Pradesh, appealed against a High Court order that directed it to consider a prisoner's application for release on probation. The prisoner, convicted under IPC section 396, had applied under the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, but his request was rejected because

BEGUM SUBANU ALIAS SAIRA BANU & ANR.versusA.M. ABDUL GAFOOR

1987 INSC 953 April 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Be​gum Subanu, a Muslim wife, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter after her husband, Abdul Gafoor, married a second wife. The lower courts dismissed her claim, holding that the husband's offer to take her back and maintain her negated

KUNWAR RAM NATH AND OTHERSversusTHE MUNICIPAL BOARD, PILIBHIT

1983 INSC 732 June 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Board of Pilibhit charged the managing director and officials of L.H. Sugar Factory with failing to pay octroi on 804 maunds of sugarcane brought by rail into the factory on 30 November 1967, alleging a violation of the 1960 octroi bye‑laws. The appellants contended that a 1936 Government order under sect

AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI .PATELversusSUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS.

2017 INSC 1022 February 2017Dismissed

The appellant, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel, filed a petition under Section 173(8) of the CrPC seeking a court‑ordered further investigation by the police after a charge‑sheet had been filed and the trial was underway. The trial court had granted the direction, but the High Court set it aside, holding that a magistrate

NEERAJ GUPTAversusPARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.

2026 INSC 6601 July 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Neeraj Gupta filed a private complaint alleging that his father died after an altercation with the respondents, leading to a criminal proceeding under sections 302 IPC. The complaint was taken up by a Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) CrPC, and the magistrate recorded some pre‑charge ev

SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 3631 May 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined three criminal appeals arising from chargesheets filed in Uttar Pradesh that were alleged to lack sufficient factual detail and evidence under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. It considered whether a chargesheet must contain detailed facts and material evidence to enable a magistrate to take cogni

LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 1881 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Bihar could file an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an acquittal rendered by a Special CBI Judge when the offence was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). The Court held that the opening words "save as o

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search