Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5,133 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,001–2,200.

EX-GUNNER VIRENDER PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2020 INSC 30518 March 2020Dismissed

Ex‑Gunner Virender Prasad was convicted by a Summary General Court Martial under Section 69 of the Army Act for murdering a fellow gunner while allegedly acting in a delusional state of a terrorist attack. The conviction and life sentence were affirmed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the appellant appealed to the Sup

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusYOGENDRA NATH ARORA

2013 INSC 17118 March 2013Dismissed

Yogendra Nath Arora, a Deputy General Manager of a Uttar Pradesh state undertaking, was on deputation to a Uttarakhand government undertaking when he was arrested for accepting a bribe. The Uttarakhand State Government repatriated him to his parent organization and granted sanction for prosecution under the Prevention

STATE OF M.P.versusRAMESH AND ANR.

2011 INSC 22118 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court’s acquittal of Ramesh and Bhaggo Bai for the murder of Bhaggo’s husband, Chatra. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of an eight‑year‑old daughter, Ran nu Bai, who alleged that the accused beat the deceased, supported by medical findings o

SETHURAMANversusRAJAMANICKAM

2009 INSC 36318 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a complaint of a dishonoured cheque where the complainant was examined as a witness. The accused filed applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the CrPC seeking the complainant's bank passbooks, income‑tax accounts and LDS deposit receipts and also to recall him for further cross‑examination. The t

AJOY KUMAR GHOSEversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2009 INSC 36418 March 2009Disposed off

The Registrar General of Patna High Court lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, including Ajoy Kumar Ghosh, used a forged letter in court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) took cognizance, issued summons, and the accused applied for discharge under s.245(2) Cr.P.C., which the trial court rejected and instead

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusDILIP PRALHAD NAMADE

2004 INSC 19018 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) appealed a Bombay High Court order that granted bail to D.P. Namade, who was charged under the NDPS Act for manufacturing and supplying Mandrax tablets. The High Court had granted bail on the ground that the Special Judge's order to provide copies of seized documents to the accused ha

RAM GOVIND UPADHYAYversusSUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 14818 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's brother was murdered during a violent incident at a polling booth, leading to the filing of an FIR under Section 302 IPC and the arrest of several accused. The accused applied for bail, which was rejected by the trial court, the High Court, and the Sessions Judge. After a second FIR for witness intimida

K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHANversusSTATE OF KERALA

1999 INSC 11718 March 1999Disposed off

K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan was charged with offences arising from a violent altercation that culminated in the stabbing death of Kesava Pillai, the father of a witness. The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Kerala High Court reversed the acquittal, con

N.K. OGLEversusSANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA

1999 INSC 11818 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Tehsildar, was ordered by the District Collector to recover lease money from the respondent and, after issuing a demand notice, seized the respondent's scooter when the latter objected to the demand. The scooter was auctioned and the respondent filed a complaint under IPC s.379 alleging theft. The Tehs

GEORGE AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KEARLA AND ANR .

1998 INSC 14318 March 1998Disposed off

The case concerned the murder of reporter Sasidharan Nair, for which three appellants (George @ Vakkachan, Rajeev and Joshy) were charged. The trial court acquitted all accused, rejecting the eye‑witness testimony of the deceased's mother (PW3) and the dying declaration, and relying on a hostile FIR. The Kerala High Co

MOHD. ASLAM ALIAS KUYIANversusSTATE OF U.P.

1993 INSC 10118 March 1993Dismissed

The case arose from a long‑standing family enmity over a religious dispute. On 25 December 1975 the appellant, Mohd Aslam, armed with a double‑barrel gun, shot the complainant’s son‑in‑law Shamim Raza, who died on the spot, and Mohd Umar, who later died of his injuries. The Sessions Court acquitted the appellant, but t

MUNIAPPANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1981 INSC 7218 March 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Muniappan was convicted of murdering his maternal uncle and the uncle's son, a double homicide, and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, who described the crime as a "terrific double murder." The Madras High Court affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whethe

IN RE: POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL versus

2025 INSC 23918 February 2025Directions issued

In a suo motu writ petition, the Supreme Court examined the statutory framework governing premature release (remission) of convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court considered whether remission could be granted without a

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSURENDRA SINGH RATHORE

2025 INSC 24818 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s order quashing FIR No.131 of 2022, which alleged that the respondent, Surendra Singh Rathore, demanded bribes for bio‑diesel sales and license renewals. A first FIR (No.123 of 2022) dealt with a specific bribe demand on 4 April 2022, while a second FIR,

LUCKOSE ZACHARIAH @ ZAK NEDUMCHIRA LUKE AND OTHERSversusJOSEPH JOSEPH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 20518 February 2022Disposed off

An FIR was lodged in 2016 against the appellants for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC. The police submitted an initial report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC implicating the appellants, but after a further investigation a supplementary report under Section 173(8) recommended dropping the case

V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 11018 February 2014Case Allowed

Three death‑row convicts (V. Sriharan @ Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu) filed mercy petitions under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution. The Governor of Tamil Nadu rejected the petitions in 2000 and the President finally rejected them in August 2011 after an inordinate delay of more th

RAMESHCHANDRA AMBALAL JOSHIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2014 INSC 10818 February 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi, issued a cheque dated 31 December 2005 to repay a loan of Rs.1,00,000. The cheque was presented for payment on 30 June 2006 and was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, leading to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant contended th

BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR.versusMONICA & ORS.

2014 INSC 10518 February 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a criminal complaint filed by Monica under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against her parents‑in‑law and later her husband. The appellants sought quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the allegations did not constitute cruelty or entrustment. The Court held that the compla

RAVIversusBADRINARAYAN AND ORS.

2011 INSC 13918 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ravi, a minor, was severely injured when a truck reversed and struck him, resulting in permanent 50% disability. His father lodged the FIR three months after the accident, citing the child's critical condition and lack of legal awareness as reasons for the delay. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and th

RENUKAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2009 INSC 20518 February 2009Disposed off

A complaint was lodged alleging that the accused assaulted the complainant, leading to a charge sheet and issuance of processes. The trial magistrate, invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), stopped the proceedings because the accused's whereabouts were unknown, without recording any reasons. Aft

SHEKARAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2009 INSC 21118 February 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Shekara, was convicted by a trial court and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court for raping a girl under 16 years of age and later intimidating the victim and her mother, under sections 376, 448, 506 (with 34) IPC, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal before the Supreme Court, it

AVIRAL BHATLAversusBHAWNA BHATLA

2009 INSC 21518 February 2009Disposed off

The husband filed transfer petitions seeking to move several matrimonial and criminal matters pending before the Family Court, Gwalior, to this Court. The parties, married in 2006, had been living separately since 2007 and were involved in multiple proceedings including a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

SAVITRI DEVIversusDISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.

1999 INSC 6818 February 1999Dismissed

Savitri Devi filed a civil suit against her four sons for maintenance and a charge over ancestral property, and the court issued an interim injunction restraining any alienation of the suit property. The first son subsequently sold one‑fourth shares of three parcels to three third‑party purchasers (respondents 3‑5). Th

BALWANT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

1994 INSC 8118 February 1994Appeal(s) allowed

Balwant Singh, a police constable, fired his service rifle during a clash with villagers who were assaulting police officers. He fired two shots in the air to scare the assailants, but two by‑standers (Karnail Singh and Pahalwan Ram) were struck and died. The trial court acquitted him, the High Court convicted him of m

DR. (MRS.) VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBATversusKASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ANR.

1987 INSC 5118 February 1987Dismissed

Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat, a married medical practitioner, was sued by her father, Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, for maintenance under Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on the ground that he could not maintain himself. The trial magistrate and the Bombay High Court held the application maintainabl

MST. ZOHARA KHATOONversusMOHD. IBRAHIM

1981 INSC 3918 February 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Zohra Khatoon, the legally married wife of Mohd. Ibrahim, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for maintenance for herself and her minor child after the husband neglected her. The trial magistrate granted Rs.100 per month to both, but the High Court quashed the maintenance for the wif

GEETA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2022 INSC 5418 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Special Court convicted the respondents under sections 452, 323/34 and 325/34 of the IPC but acquitted them of offences under sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim, Geeta Devi, appealed the acquittal. The Allahabad High Court dismissed t

ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 5718 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves an alleged murder of Daxaben, where the husband (respondent No.2) was accused of conspiring with co‑accused to kill her for insurance money and stage it as an accident. The investigation produced extensive material, including call records and a charge‑sheet linking the accused to the crime under Secti

BHAGWANIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 5218 January 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering an 11‑year‑old girl after she disappeared from a village ceremony. Circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA matches to the co‑accused Satish and blood‑stained clothing recovered from the appellant's cowshed, linked the appellant to the crime, wh

NAND KISHOREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 5818 January 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a 50‑year‑old manhole worker, was convicted of raping and murdering an eight‑year‑old girl based on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness identification and forensic findings. The trial court and High Court upheld the conviction and imposed the death penalty, deeming the crime "rarest of rare". O

REPUBLIC OF ITALY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 4318 January 2013Disposed off

The case arose from an incident on 15 February 2012 when two Italian naval officers aboard the merchant vessel M.V. Enrica Lexie fired on an Indian fishing boat 20.5 nautical miles off the Kerala coast, killing two fishermen. The Kerala police lodged an FIR under the Indian Penal Code and arrested the officers, which t

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusVISHWESHWAR KOL

2011 INSC 5618 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Vishweshwar K. Kol was accused of pouring kerosene on his second wife and four daughters, resulting in their deaths. The eldest daughter, Jyoti, gave a dying declaration to the police after a doctor certified her fitness to testify. The trial court convicted Kol under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death based on

ALAMELU & ANR.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2011 INSC 5518 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 109 for alleged abduction, forced marriage and rape of PW‑2, a girl claimed to be a minor. The High Court affirmed the trial court's convictions, but the Supreme Court, exercising its Article 136 jurisdiction, examined the evidentiary record

RAHUL AGARWALversusRAKESH JAIN AND ANR.

2005 INSC 3618 January 2005Disposed off

The appellant, Rahul Agarwal, filed a criminal complaint against Rakesh Jain arising from a land dispute, alleging offences under IPC sections 341, 294 and 506(2) read with 34. After the trial was posted for examination of the accused, the Assistant Public Prosecutor applied for withdrawal of the prosecution under Sect

KAILASH VERMAversusPUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND ANR.

2005 INSC 3718 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Kailash Verma, a partner in a rice mill, was charged under IPC sections 406 and 428 for alleged non‑delivery of paddy to the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation. He obtained discharge from the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that he was a sleeping partner. The corporation challenged the discharge in a revis

JAGJIT SINGH @ JAGGAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2005 INSC 4018 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Jagjit Singh (Jagga) was convicted of murder of three persons and alleged rape based primarily on the testimony of a seven‑year‑old child witness, Billo (PW‑6). The child’s statements were recorded three and six days after the incident, after being allegedly prompted by her father, and she never identified the appellan

STATE OF BIHARversusSRI RA.IENDRA AGRAWALLA

1996 INSC 9418 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The police seized a truck loaded with stolen railway track pieces and recorded a report, treated as an FIR, alleging that the goods were loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla. A charge‑sheet was filed and the magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 414 IPC. The respondent petitioned the Patna Hig

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSH. B.R. BAJAJ AND ORS.

1994 INSC 1218 January 1994

The Union of India and the Delhi Special Police Establishment appealed against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that quashed an FIR registered under sections 120‑B, 418, 468 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri B.R. Bajaj, the Finance Secretary of Chandigarh, and several tenderers. The FIR alleged t

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusCHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN

1990 INSC 1418 January 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Sub‑Inspector of police, was convicted of raping a 19‑year‑old woman, Shamimbanu, by the trial court. The High Court acquitted him, holding that the victim’s testimony required corroboration in material particulars and that medical evidence was inconsistent. The State appealed. The Supreme Court held

SHARAD KUMAR TYAGIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

1989 INSC 2318 January 1989Dismissed

The petitioner, Sharad Kumar Tyagi, challenged his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, arguing that the three incidents cited—extortion of "chauth" from a mango garden contractor, a shopkeeper, and a market threat with a revolver—did not affect public order, that the third incident was fabricate

RAHNA JALALversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 70717 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a mother‑in‑law, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 498A IPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 alleging that her son had pronounced triple talaq on his wife. The Kerala High Court denied the bail application, prompting an appeal to the Supreme C

DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLAversusSMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 70617 December 2020Disposed off

Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla filed a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to his deceased daughter's in‑laws under Section 438 CrPC. The FIR alleged dowry harassment, assault in 2017, money demands and the unnatural death of the daughter within seven years of marriage, invo

MANJUversusSTATE OF DELHI

2019 INSC 138517 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a mother, gave birth to a baby girl in a Delhi hospital; the infant died shortly after being handed to her, and the prosecution alleged she strangulated the child because it was female. The trial court and the High Court convicted her of murder under Section 302 IPC based largely on circumstantial eviden

STATE OF PUNJABversusLABH SINGH

2014 INSC 87617 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The State of Punjab sought to prosecute two retired public servants, Sikandar Singh and Labh Singh, for alleged corruption and related offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The department had refused sanction to prosecute them both before and after their retirements, yet a cha

STATE OF PUNJABversusJAGGA SINGH ETC

2014 INSC 87817 December 2014Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Satnam Singh in Ludhiana in 2002. Seven persons were charged; two (Charanjit Singh and Surjit Singh) were convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, while five others were acquitted by the High Court. The State appealed the acquittals and the two convicted appealed t

POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA&ANR.

2014 INSC 88017 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a non‑executive director of M/S Elite International Pvt. Ltd., was charged under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. She had resigned from the board on 17‑December‑2005, while the cheques were dishonoured in 2008. The com

GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2013 INSC 84217 December 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Gulabrao Baburao Deokar, was charged along with 56 others for a massive defalcation of public funds amounting to Rs.169.60 crore involving the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. He was granted bail by the Sessions Court under Section 439(1) CrPC, but the High Court cancelled the bail on grounds of procedural

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2013 INSC 83917 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which requires prior Central Government approval for CBI investigations into senior officials, applies when the investigation is being monitored by the Court itself. The Court noted that the CBI had initiated investigatio

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS

2013 INSC 84117 December 2013Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a High Court order that had discontinued criminal proceedings in Dholpur under Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), on the ground that the same offence was already being tried in courts at Sagar and Chanderi, Madhya Pradesh. The three FIRs (No. 161/2010, 310/2010

ASHFAQ AHMED QUERESHI & ANR.versusNAMRATA CHOPRA & ORS.

2013 INSC 84317 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants entered into an agreement to purchase land that the respondents claimed to own exclusively, paying Rs. 50 lakh as earnest money. The respondents later sold the land to a third party, and the appellants discovered that the land had been shown as open parking in a municipal permission for a club house, ind

SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS.versusSRI KANT AND ANR.

2009 INSC 131917 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted of an offence under Section 308 IPC by the Sessions Court, which instead convicted them under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC and released them on probation. The private complainant filed a criminal revision under Section 401(3) CrPC, and the High Court set aside the acquittal, finding the appella

RAGHU RAJ SINGH ROUSHAversusM/S. SHIVAM SUNDRARAM PROMOTERS (P) L & ANR.

2008 INSC 145917 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent company filed a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging several IPC offences against the appellant. The Metropolitan Magistrate, having taken cognizance, refused to order a police investigation under Section 156(3) and directed the complainant to present pre‑summoning evidence. The complainant f

DHARIWAL TOBAGO PRODUCTS LTD. AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 146017 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and its senior officials were charged with manufacturing adulterated Gutkha, violating Rule 62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. A Judicial Magistrate issued summons, and the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking

PANDURANG SITARAM BHAGWATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2004 INSC 72417 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a police constable and landlord, was convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of his tenant's wife, while the three co‑accused were acquitted. The trial court had found the complainant's and her son’s statements unreliable and declared them hostile, but still convicted the appellant. On

LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2002 INSC 54817 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, three constables, were convicted for murder, attempted murder and related offences arising from a violent incident on 24 December 1996. The prosecution's case relied on three eye‑witnesses, forensic reports and seized weapons, but the Supreme Court found serious deficiencies: the FIR was interpolated to

SATNAM SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1999 INSC 56917 December 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a truck driver, was originally convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for allegedly crushing the deceased with his truck. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of three eye‑witness statements, noting material omissions and the three‑day delay in recording them under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

KISHORIversusSTATE (NCT) OF DELHI

1999 INSC 57217 December 1999

The appellant Kishori was convicted for the murder of three Sikh brothers during the 1984 anti‑Sikh riots, based on eye‑witness testimony that identified him as a member of the unlawful assembly who used a knife to kill the victims. The High Court upheld the conviction and imposed the death penalty, deeming the case a

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusW.N. CHADHA

1992 INSC 34717 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the Union of India's and CBI's challenge to a Delhi High Court order that quashed the FIR registered against W.N. Chadha in the Bofors scandal and set aside the letters rogatory issued to Swiss authorities. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence and that the High Court ha

MOHINDER SINGHversusGULWANT SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

1991 INSC 34217 December 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that his brother‑in‑law, Darshan Singh, had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage to Jagjit Kaur was still subsisting, thereby committing bigamy under IPC s.494 and abetment under s.109. The magistrate, after recording stateme

PAWAN KUMAR GOELversusSTATE OF U. P. & ANOTHER

2022 INSC 121217 November 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a machinery dealer, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque issued by a director of Ravi Organics Ltd. was dishonoured. The complaint named the director but did not name the company as an accused nor aver that the director was in charge of and responsi

KUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERAversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA

2017 INSC 112417 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant KUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERA and co‑accused Pravati Behera were convicted under IPC s.302 read with s.34 for the murder of Santosh Behera, the prosecution alleging an extra‑marital relationship as motive. The sole eye‑witness, PW‑1 (Niranjan Behera), claimed to have seen the murder and to have disclosed the alleg

DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

2015 INSC 84117 November 2015Disposed off

Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, a senior Indian Forest Service officer, was subjected to a vigilance enquiry, house raid and arrest without the prior approval of the Chief Secretary, as required by the State's procedural rules. The petitioner contended that the State violated his fundamental rights, unlawfully suspended him, and

RAM BHAROSEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 124017 November 2009Dismissed

The appellant Ram Bharosey was convicted for the murder of Puran Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution proved that the appellant and co‑accused fired shots at the victim, resulting in his death, and identified the appellant through the first informant’s testimony and other evidence. The

. SAU PANCHASHLLA DADA MESSHRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 124117 November 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sau Panchashila Dada Messhram, and her husband confined their two‑year‑old daughter in a bathroom for 14 days without food or water, leading to the child's death by starvation. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the High Cour

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2008 INSC 130817 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC), a government company, lodged a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque drawn in its favour was dishonoured. The complaint was filed by NSIC’s Development Officer, who is a public servant, and the Magistrate, relying on the proviso to S

K. HASHIMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2004 INSC 65017 November 2004Dismissed

The appellants K. Hashim and another were convicted for counterfeiting US dollar notes, possession of counterfeit currency, and possession of materials used for counterfeiting under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC. The conviction was based largely on the confessional

BHARGAVAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2003 INSC 63517 November 2003Dismissed

The deceased Chandran was brutally assaulted by six accused who were armed with deadly weapons and later died of his injuries. The prosecution relied on the nephew’s eye‑witness testimony, dying declarations made before three police officers, and medical evidence, leading to convictions under Sections 302, 143, 148 and

MANOHAR M. GALANIversusASHOK N. ADVANI

1999 INSC 52317 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Manohar M. Galan filed criminal complaints alleging that Kishore Keswani had lodged false FIRs against him and his family, leading to their arrest. A social activist filed a public interest petition (PIP) in the Gujarat High Court, which directed an inquiry into alleged scandal in a subordinate court at Dakor. While th

P.N. KRISHNA LAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusGOVT. OF KERALA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 52417 November 1994

The appellants, licensees of arrack and foreign liquor shops, were convicted under sections 57A and 57B of the Kerala Abkari Act (as amended in 1984) for mixing or permitting the mixing of noxious substances such as methanol with liquor, or for failing to take reasonable precautions, and for possessing adulterated liqu

UNION OF INDIAversusMOHD. SADIQ RATHER

1992 INSC 31717 November 1992Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against a bail order granted to Mohd. Sadiq Rather under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The charge‑sheet, deemed a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), had been filed with the Designated Court at Jammu, but the b

VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2024 INSC 78817 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar, was convicted and sentenced to death for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother, based largely on the ocular testimony of a single injured neighbour (PW‑12) and circumstantial evidence such as a recovered hammer, blood‑stained clothes and CCTV footage. The Supreme

GURMAIL SINGH & ANRversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 109717 October 2022Dismissed

The case arose from a land dispute in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, where the deceased Dalip Singh was attacked and killed by a group of ten men, including the appellant Gurmail Singh, who were armed with firearms and other weapons. The trial court convicted all ten under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and the

MD. JABBAR ALI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2022 INSC 109617 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were convicted by a Fast Track Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court for offences under IPC sections 302 r/w 149, 148, 123 and 447. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the testimony of ten prosecution witnesses, all of whom were related to the deceased and to each other, and found material

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARIversusMANISH SISODIA & ORS

2022 INSC 110417 October 2022Disposed off

The Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging defamation against six persons, including Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A‑1) and Vijender Gupta (A‑5). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons, but the two appellants challenged the order. The Supreme Court held that

HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2019 INSC 115917 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd., a corporate entity, sought possession of a residential flat that had been occupied by its former director, Bal Binode Bajoria, after his retirement. The company filed a criminal complaint under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and an application under Section 630(2) for dispossessio

UTTAM RAMversusDEVINDER SINGH HUDAN & ANR.

2019 INSC 116017 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an apple orchard owner, supplied packing material on credit to the respondent, who later settled the account and issued a cheque for Rs.5,38,856 which was returned for insufficient funds. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was dismissed by the

M. HARIHARASUDHANversusR. KARMEGAM AND ORS.

2019 INSC 116217 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Mr. M. Hariharasudhan, who runs a hotel, sued the respondents for damages after they damaged his property and stole cash. The trial court decreed damages, but the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the decree, holding that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 implicitly barred

DR. LAKSHMANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2019 INSC 115317 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Lakshman entered into agreements with several respondents to procure 70 acres of land for a payment of Rs 9 crore. The respondents allegedly sold the land before the agreement, issued cheques that later bounced, and forced the appellant to sign sale deeds, leading to complaints under the IPC for cheating, fraud and

MANI PUSHPAK JOSHIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2019 INSC 116117 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a six‑year‑old girl filed an FIR alleging sexual assault by a teacher at her school. The child’s statements, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, later identified two men, one wearing spectacles, as perpetrators; the latter was the school manager, not a teaching staff. The trial court, and sub

N. SOUNDARAMversusP.K. POUNRAJ & ANR.

[2014] 10 S.C.R. 110817 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, N. Soundaram, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, P.K. Pounraj, and a group of men forcibly entered her residence, confined her and her mother‑in‑law, and seized documents related to a monetary dispute. An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 447, 395 and 506(II) of the IPC, but the police la

GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LTD.versusANU MEHTA & ORS.

2014 INSC 73617 October 2014Disposed off

The appellant, Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order quashing criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against several directors of the accused company. The Supreme Court held that a complaint must specifically aver that a director wa

A.K. SINGHANIAversusGUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR.

2013 INSC 70117 October 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and its directors, including A.K. Singhania and Vikram Prakash, for dishonour of cheques. The key issue was whether the complaints specifically alleged that the directors were "in ch

GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2012 INSC 47817 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The wife filed an FIR in Allahabad alleging dowry harassment, physical and mental torture by her husband and his family, naming the husband, his parents, brother and sister. The brother and sister, who were unmarried, sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, claiming the FIR was filed

PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.versusJ.K. JOHNSON & ORS.

2011 INSC 77017 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned a seizure of a jeep, rifles and wildlife by police under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The accused offered to compound the offence under Section 54(1) and the Conservator of Forests ordered forfeiture of the seized items. The appellants appealed, arguing that the amendment to Section 54 gave

ISHWAR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2008 INSC 116917 October 2008Case Partly allowed

Ishwar Singh was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for assaulting Devi Singh and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the accused and the victim reached

MAHADEV PRASAD KAUSHIKversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2008 INSC 117217 October 2008

The appellant, a medical practitioner, was accused of causing the death of a patient, Buddha Ram, after administering three injections, and of threatening the complainant to withdraw the case. The trial magistrate issued summons under IPC sections 304, 504 and 506, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examine

STATE OF PUNJABversusGURDEV SINGH & ORS.

2008 INSC 117317 October 2008Dismissed

The State of Punjab charged six accused with murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34, alleging that after a jeep deliberately struck the deceased's scooter, the accused assaulted him with rods and hockey sticks, leading to his death after 55 days. The trial court convicted four of the accused, but the Punjab and Haryana

VIRENDRA @ BUDDHU & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2008 INSC 117617 October 2008Dismissed

The case involves the murder of Rameshwar Dayal on 5 October 1979, for which three men—Virendra (Buddhu), Ram Asrey (Tami) and Girish Chandra (Gappu)—were charged under Sections 302, 34 and 307 of the IPC. The deceased's wife (PW‑1) and daughter (PW‑2, a 14‑year‑old girl) were eye‑witnesses and identified the accused.

N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P.

2008 INSC 117817 October 2008Dismissed

The accused, a government servant, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, imposed a fine, and ordered that four specified assets be auctioned with proceeds

KASHI RAM AND ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2001 INSC 51617 October 2001Case Partly allowed

Eight accused were tried for murder, assault and illegal possession of arms after a violent clash in a Madhya Pradesh village. The trial court acquitted all, finding that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that the accused acted in private defence, especially since one accused (Prabhu) had sustained serious

KAMALADEVI AGARWALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 51717 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Kamala Devi Agarwal, a partner in a firm, complained that a deed of dissolution of the partnership had been forged, causing her son mental shock and the closure of his shop. She filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B. The trial magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons.

ABDUL WAHAB ANSARIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2000 INSC 48317 October 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a public servant appointed as a duty magistrate, ordered open firing to disperse a mob at an encroachment site, resulting in one death and injuries. A private complaint was filed alleging multiple offences under the IPC and the Arms Act, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued non‑ba

THAMMINENI BHASKARversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 112417 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Thammineni Bhaskar, was convicted by the trial court and the High Court for kidnapping and murdering the son of an informant under IPC sections 302, 364 and 201. The prosecution's case relied on the allegation that the accused forcibly took the victim into an auto and that the victim was later found dead

KANCHAN SHARMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 49617 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kanchan Sharma, was charged under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after the deceased, her brother-in-law, consumed poison at her house. The High Court rejected her application under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceed

RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusANIL KANWARIYA

2021 INSC 49017 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. appointed Anil Kanwariya as a Technical Helper on probation. The employee concealed a prior conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and filed a false declaration stating no criminal case was pending or any conviction. After police verification revealed the conviction, the em

M/S. ESCORTS LIMITEDversusRAMA MUKHERJEE

2013 INSC 63017 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

M/S. Escorts Limited filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Rama Mukherjee for a dishonoured cheque. The Delhi High Court held that, because the cheque was presented and the notice was sent from Delhi, the Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction to try the offence. On appeal, the Supreme

AJOY ACHARYAversusSTATE BUREAU OF INV. AGAINST ECO. OFFENCE

2013 INSC 63217 September 2013Dismissed

The case concerned Ajoy Acharya, an IAS officer who was also a nominee Director of the Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (MPSIDC). He was charged for allowing the Board of MPSIDC to pass a resolution on 19‑April‑1995 that authorised short‑term loans, allegedly contrary to earlier government decisi

PRATIBHAversusRAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 92917 September 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a wife, filed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty after leaving her matrimonial home. The husband filed a divorce petition, and the respondents moved the High Court to quash the FIR under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed t

DIPESH CHANDAKversusUNION OF INDIA

2004 INSC 52917 September 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

Dipesh Chandak, an accused in the Bihar fodder scam, was granted a pardon by a Special CBI Judge under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the condition that he make a full and complete disclosure of the misappropriation of funds. The Income Tax Department later issued a show‑cause notice for alleged filing o

ANWAR CHAND SAB NANADIKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2003 INSC 48817 September 2003Dismissed

The appellant, a property clerk in the court of a Judicial Magistrate, was charged under Section 409 of the IPC for criminal breach of trust, alleged to have misappropriated court property and sold it to four persons. The trial court acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment and misap

TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRYversusRAJESH AGARWAL AND ORS.

1999 INSC 42317 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Chairman of Trisuns Chemical Industry filed a complaint before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class in Gujarat alleging that the respondents, directors of a company in Madhya Pradesh, cheated them by supplying inferior toasted soybean extracts after taking advance payment. The magistrate forwarded the complaint to

MS. ZversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 75617 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Ms. Z, a 35‑year‑old destitute woman with mild mental retardation and HIV‑positive status, alleged that she had been raped and sought termination of her 18‑week pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The government hospital failed to perform the termination, involving the appellant’s father and

SUBHASH KRISHNANversusSTATE OF GOA

2012 INSC 33917 August 2012Dismissed

The appellant Subhash Krishnan was convicted for abduction, wrongful confinement and murder of Shanu Komarpant, alleged to have been assaulted with a talwar, knife and danda, rendered unconscious and later hanged. The prosecution relied on a complaint (Exhibit 96) by PW‑2, extensive eyewitness testimony, forensic repor

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusDR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL & ANR.

2012 INSC 34117 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a Rajasthan High Court order that quashed an FIR registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal, a junior specialist surgeon, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500 in a police‑led trap. The High Court had r

RANJAN DWIVEDIversusC.B.I., THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

2012 INSC 34217 August 2012Dismissed

The petitioners, accused in the 1975 Samastipur bomb‑blast case, sought quashing of the trial on the ground that a 37‑year delay violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudence on speedy trial, noting that the right is implicit in Article 21 and

MALOTH SOMARAJUversusSTATE OF AP.

2011 INSC 58717 August 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Maloth Somaraju, was accused of murdering his elder brother with an axe during the night of 15 May 1999. The trial court acquitted him, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the H

AMITAVA BANERJEE @ AMIT @ BAPPA BANERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011 INSC 58417 August 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Amitava Banerjee, was accused of strangling and killing a ten‑year‑old boy, Snehasish Mondal, and burying the body in a jungle. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts – the victim’s last sighting with the accused, the accused’s bicycle and cap recovered near the burial site, a spade t

STATE NCT OF DELHIversusAJIT SETH @ AJJI

2010 INSC 52017 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant Ajit Seth was convicted for the brutal burning to death of two children, aged three and seven, and sentenced to death under IPC 302 and to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under IPC 364. The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, directing that the appellant not be released until he

MADAN MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2010 INSC 52117 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior officer, was prosecuted under IPC sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 294(b) based on a FIR alleging that he harassed a driver who later was found dead, allegedly leaving a suicide note blaming the appellant. The Supreme Court examined the authenticity of the note and the FIR, finding the not

SUKHRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 84117 August 2007Case Partly allowed

The case involved a dowry‑related death of Meerabai, whose husband (appellant A‑1) and father‑in‑law (appellant A‑2, Sukhram) were initially convicted by the trial court of offences under Sections 304‑B and 498‑A IPC. The High Court set aside those convictions but convicted both of them for murder under Section 302 IPC

PRADEEP KUMAR@ PRADEEP KUMAR VERMAversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2007 INSC 84217 August 2007Disposed off

The appellant, Pradeep Kumar, was charged under Sections 376 and 406 IPC for having sexual relations with the complainant on a promise to marry her. The complainant alleged that the promise was a false pretense to obtain consent, and the trial court framed charges which the appellant sought to discharge. The Supreme Co

Y. ABRAHAM AJITH AND ORS.versusINSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 45417 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of a Chennai Metropolitan Magistrate to try a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and the Dowry Act, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the magistrate's local area. The High Court dismissed their Section 482 application, holding the m

HEMANT DHASMANAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2001 INSC 37417 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Hemant Dhasmana filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the sons of a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax demanded a bribe. The CBI conducted a trap, recovered cash, but its final report exonerated the respondents and accused Dhasmana of false information. The Special Judge rejected the CBI

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusK. KRISHNAN

2000 INSC 40317 August 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Range Forest Officer seized a jeep and a lorry along with forest produce for being transported without a permit under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The authorized officer ordered the jeep’s release on the condition that the respondent furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee, but the respondent sought unconditional

KISHAN LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1999 INSC 33717 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Smt. Sulochana was allegedly burnt and later died; she gave an oral dying declaration on 6 November naming the appellant and his family, and a later statement before a magistrate on 11 November that did not name any accused. The police investigation found no sustainable evidence, leading the trial court to

DANDU LAKSHMI REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1999 INSC 33817 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Dandu Lakshmi Reddy and his mother were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC based solely on two dying declarations of the deceased, which contained a material discrepancy regarding the circumstances of the fire. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of dying declarations, noting that th

P. JAYAPPANversusS.K. PERUMAL, FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TUTICORIN

1984 INSC 14717 August 1984Dismissed

The petitioner, a proprietor of a food business, filed income‑tax returns that were later found to contain false statements and suppressed transactions after a search of his premises. Complaints were lodged against him under sections 276C and 277 of the Income‑Tax Act and sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code,

M SAMBASIVA RAOversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 86817 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Administrative Officer in an insurance company, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.40,000 to expedite a claim settlement and of conspiring with a regional manager and his brother in a demand‑and‑trap operation. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court reversed the acquit

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSHYAM BIHARI & OTHERS

2023 INSC 62317 July 2023Dismissed

In 1987 three police constables were alleged to have shot dead Raj Kumar Baliyan during a night patrol. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, ballistic reports and an autopsy that indicated a .12 bore weapon, not the rifles issued to the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused because the eyewitnesses co

ARVIND KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT, DELHI

2023 INSC 62217 July 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a police guard, was carrying a semi‑automatic carbine when he was asked by a Sub‑Inspector to stop a constable from using the police telephone. During a scuffle the weapon became entangled in the appellant's belt chain, causing an accidental discharge of five rounds that struck the constable, who later d

THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.versusCHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 97217 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against a Gujarat High Court order that had directed the GST authority to complete an adjudicatory process within eight weeks and had granted the respondents protection from arrest after they were served summons under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for interrogation. The respondents, fea

PYARE LALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2020 INSC 45717 July 2020Directions issued

The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, was released in 2019 under a Haryana Government policy granting special remission to elderly convicts who had served a minimum period. The policy was implemented by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution without placing the individual fa

TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 61717 July 2018Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Art. 32 filed by a social activist seeking directions to curb cow‑vigilantism, lynching and mob violence. It held that such acts are unlawful, violate fundamental rights and the State has a constitutional duty to protect life and human dignity. The Court issued compre

PADMINI MAHENDRABHAI GADDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2017 INSC 62217 July 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda, was convicted under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence and giving false information to screen the offender in a murder case, while being acquitted of the murder charge itself. The trial court sentenced her to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which th

AJAY PANDIT @ JAGDISH DAYABHAI PATEL & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 28917 July 2012Case Partly allowed

The accused, a dentist, lured vulnerable individuals with false promises of sending them to America, extracted large sums of money and murdered two victims in separate incidents while attempting to murder two others. Conviction under sections 419, 420, 302, 307, 397, 342 and 328 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness testi

ASRAF ALIversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2008 INSC 84017 July 2008Case Allowed

The appellant Asraf Ali was charged with murder of Khairul Hoque and was convicted by the trial court under IPC s.304(Part I) and later by the High Court under s.304(Part II). The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court observed that during the examination under Section 313 of the CrPC th

MOHD. YASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.

2007 INSC 75817 July 2007Disposed off

Mohd. Yaseen was convicted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed and a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court was also rejected. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proced

MAULANA NASEERUDDLN MOHD. HANEEFUDDLNversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2007 INSC 75917 July 2007Dismissed

The appellant, Maulana Naseeruddin, was charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) and the IPC for allegedly conspiring to murder Hindu leaders by training youths in Pakistan. A confessional statement was recorded by the DCP under Section 32 of POTA on 7 November 2004, which the appellant retracted afte

SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1984 INSC 12117 July 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sharad Birdhichand Sarda was convicted of murder under s.302 IPC for allegedly poisoning his wife Manju with potassium cyanide and sentenced to death. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the deceased's letters, oral statements to relatives, and medical reports, but

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusTALEVAR & ANR.

2011 INSC 41717 June 2011Dismissed

In December 1996 a dacoity with two murders was committed at a house in Rajasthan. Two of the accused, Kuniya and Talevar, were later arrested and, based on their disclosure statements, cash, silver items and a scooter were recovered, but the recoveries occurred several days after the incident and involved items that c

GHURELAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2011 INSC 41817 June 2011Dismissed

The case involves a dacoity on 16-17 December 1996 in which two persons were murdered and movable property was looted. Six accused were identified through test identification parades and the stolen articles, weapons and a vehicle were recovered based on their disclosures. They were convicted under Sections 395, 396 and

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHIversusOWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.

2024 INSC 44717 May 2024Case Partly allowed

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated a terrorist plot in Jammu & Kashmir and filed a chargesheet on 25 September 2019 under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1989. The Special Judge, NIA, refused to take cognizance of the conspiracy charge under Section 120‑B of the Ranbir Penal Code because the req

AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 43817 May 2024Disposed off

The case concerns a double murder alleged to have occurred on 19 May 2020 when the accused fired indiscriminately at the complainant’s house, killing his two sons and injuring his nephew. The complainant filed an FIR and the accused were charged under several IPC sections; the Allahabad High Court later granted regular

SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

2024 INSC 44817 May 2024Dismissed

The case arose from a POCSO trial in which the Special Judge conducted the proceedings in extreme haste, denying the accused the opportunity to consult counsel, receive documents, and present a defence, and ultimately imposing a death sentence that was set aside by the Patna High Court and a de novo trial ordered. The

SATISH KUMAR JATAVversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2022 INSC 57717 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the original complainant, challenged a High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings against the accused under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(10)(15) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court, relying on a single paragraph stating that no useful purpose would

MS. XversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

2018 INSC 52917 May 2018Disposed off

The accused, a film producer, was charged with rape, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and related offences under the IPC. He had earlier obtained anticipatory bail, which was cancelled for not disclosing a pending 2G Spectrum case, but later secured regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC by the High Court. The ap

THE KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATIONversusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 52817 May 2018Dismissed

The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association appealed to the Supreme Court seeking parity in retirement age with Public Prosecutors, arguing that both categories perform similar duties and that the former should retire at 60 years like the latter. The High Court had rejected this claim, holding that the modes of

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusFIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN

2016 INSC 42917 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Firoz Khan, who was charged with murdering an 11‑year‑old girl under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court had acquitted him on the basis of a benefit of doubt. The State filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the

AMAR PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2012 INSC 23817 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

A complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Bulandshahar seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR for a shooting incident. The CJM dismissed the application. The complainant appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the CJM's

STATE OF PUNJABversusNOHAR CHAND

1984 INSC 11217 May 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Nohar Chand, a fertilizer manufacturer in Ludhiana, for producing sub‑standard fertilizer that was marketed through his agent, Sachdeva Enterprises, in Kapurthala. A sample taken from the agent’s premises was found sub‑standard, leading to a criminal complaint under the Essential Commodit

SHAHED KAMAL & ORS.versusM/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 50217 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Homebuyers dissatisfied with the services of a builder erected a public banner listing various grievances, which the builder claimed was defamatory and filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants argued that the banner was a peaceful protest made in good faith to protect

ANKIT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 50117 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Ankit Mishra, alleged that respondent No.2, Abdul Razzak, a known gangster, hurled obscene abuses and death threats at him in a hospital, leading to FIR No.176 of 2023 under IPC sections 195A, 294 and 506. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to the respondent under Section 438 of t

SUBHASH AGGARWALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 49917 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a father, was convicted of murdering his son under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The central issue was whether the death was a homicide or a suicide, given the absence of a clear motive and reliance on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined forensic evidence,

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCEversusRAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

2025 INSC 49817 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the illegal possession, manufacture and sale of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, leading to charges under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act against several res

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSANTOSH KARNANI & ANR

2023 INSC 38017 April 2023Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated a trap operation in which Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Santosh Karnani allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 30 lakhs to influence a tax assessment of Safal Construction. The complainant recorded the demand and the subsequent acknowledgment of paym

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusASHARAM @ ASHUMAL

2023 INSC 38317 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a High Court order that allowed the respondent, Asharam, to summon Deputy Commissioner of Police Ajay Pal Lamba under Section 391 of the CrPC, based on a claim in his book that he had recorded a video of the crime scene a day before site maps were prepared. The Supreme Court held

SOUNDARAJANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL

2023 INSC 37717 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Sub‑Registrar, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a Rs.500 gratification to release a registered sale deed. The prosecution relied on a trap operation and the testimony of a shadow witness, but the complainant, who was the key witness to the alleged demand, was declared

SIJU KURIANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 37817 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant Siju Kurian was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for murder, concealment of body, theft and cheating. The conviction rested on circumstantial evidence, the post‑mortem report establishing homicide, witnesses who saw the accused with the deceased, and a voluntary statement made by the accused that led

VIPULBHAI MANSINGBHAI CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 35417 April 2017Disposed off

Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary, who continued as Chairman of a district cooperative milk union beyond his three‑year term, was served a show‑cause notice under s.76B(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961. The Registrar removed him and disqualified him for three years; a later order extended the di

M.NARAYANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 33717 April 2015Dismissed

M. Narayan was convicted for dowry death and cruelty after his wife Ganga was found hanging within two years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that Narayan repeatedly demanded additional dowry, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and threatened her, leading to her suicide. The trial court acquitted him,

MOHAN LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 33417 April 2015Dismissed

Mohan Lal was convicted for possession of 10 kg of opium under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and for theft under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. He argued that the offence occurred before the NDPS Act came into force, that applying the Act was retrospective and violative of Art.20(1) of the Constitution, that the seizure

ANNAPURNAversusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 26317 April 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by the mother‑in‑law convicted of murdering her daughter‑in‑law, who died within two months of marriage after being burnt with kerosene. The victim’s dying declaration alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on her because of dowry demands. The trial and High Courts had relied on

SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 54817 April 2009Disposed off

The appellant, a husband, was convicted by the trial court and the Bombay High Court for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while being acquitted of a dowry‑related charge under Section 498A. The prosecution relied on three circumstances: the wife’s unnatural death, the fact that th

RAMESHAN P.O. & ORS.versusRAKESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

2009 INSC 55017 April 2009Disposed off

The appellants, accused of a cognizable offence, filed a revision before the Sessions Judge challenging an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing registration of an FIR. The Allahabad High Court allowed the revision under Sections 397 and 401 but disposed of the application without issuing notice to the accus

KANTI LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2009 INSC 55417 April 2009Dismissed

The case concerned the death of Smt. Laxmi, who suffered 90% burn injuries within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that her husband (A-1) and his brother (A-3) harassed and tortured her to extract dowry, leading to her death, and secured convictions under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The defence relied o

U .P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.versusBIJLI MAZDOOR SANGH AND ORS.

[2007] 5 S.C.R. 25617 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd terminated two daily‑wage Chowkidars in 1979. The Industrial Tribunal held the termination illegal under s.25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and s.6‑N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ordered their reinstatement and deemed them regularised after three years. The High Court d

BIJOY SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2002 INSC 20917 April 2002Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a mass murder on 25 August 1991 in which Vijay Singh was killed and Sanuj Singh injured; twelve men were charged under IPC sections 302, 149 and 307 and the Arms Act. The trial court convicted all accused, but on appeal the Supreme Court examined procedural lapses such as delay in lodging the FIR, de

DHARMENDRASINH @ MANSING RATANSINHversusSTTE OF GUJARAT

2002 INSC 21017 April 2002Dismissed

The appellant, Dharmendrasinh, was convicted of murdering his two sons. The prosecution relied primarily on the ocular testimony of his wife, who described the incident in detail, and was corroborated by a neighbour. The defence challenged the credibility of the wife’s testimony, the contradiction regarding where the F

P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC.versusSTATE (CBL/SPE) ETC. ETC.

1998 INSC 18517 April 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Members of Parliament (MPs) could claim immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution for offences of offering or accepting bribes to influence their speech or vote in Parliament, and whether they fall within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Ac

STATE OF HARYANAversusCHANDVIR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 54117 April 1996Dismissed

The case arose from a violent altercation on 21 September 1984 in which the deceased Rajpal was attacked and later died from injuries. The prosecution charged Chandvir and Rohtash (A1 and A2) with murder under Section 302 read with Section 32 of the IPC and also under Section 149 for rioting. The trial court convicted

R.S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

1986 INSC 8617 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal by R.S. Nayak against former Maharashtra Chief Minister A.R. Antulay concerning the framing of charges under sections 120B, 161, 165, 384, and 420 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial judge had framed 21 charges and discharged the respondent on 22 other

PATHUMMAversusMUHAMMAD

1986 INSC 8717 April 1986Disposed off

The appellants, Pathumma and her minor daughter Sulekha, filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance from Muhammad, alleging that they were his wife and illegitimate child. The trial magistrate held that no marriage existed but that Sulekha was Muhammad’s illegitimate child and ordered mainte

PATHUMMA AND ANRversusMOHAMMAD

1986 INSC 8817 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a Section 125 CrPC application for maintenance, claiming that the respondent was their husband and that their minor daughter was his illegitimate child. The Judicial Magistrate held that the marriage was not proved, but that the child was illegitimate and ordered maintenance of Rs.25 per month. The

POKAR RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

1985 INSC 9317 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

On 23 August 1983 Bhanwaria, the son of Pokar Ram, was shot and later died, leading to an FIR under sections 307, 447, 149, 148, 379 and 827 IPC, and subsequently an offence under section 302 IPC was added. The accused, Chandan Singh, was not arrested until 29 September 1983, when he applied for anticipatory bail under

MOHAMMAD KALEEMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2026 INSC 25117 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a complaint by Mohammad Kaleem regarding the murder of Ammar, wherein the complainant sought to summon two additional persons, Rajendra and Mausam, as accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court rejected the application, holding that the evide

RANJIT SARKARversusRAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 41517 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ranjit Sarkar, lodged a complaint under Section 304‑A IPC alleging medical negligence, which led to the issuance of summons against the respondents. The High Court stayed the proceedings, but the Judicial Magistrate, ignoring the stay and a COVID‑19 SOP, called the case on 6 January 2021 and later dismis

PARMINDER SINGHversusHONEY GOYAL AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 36117 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 21‑year‑old veterinary student and state‑level volleyball player, suffered quadriplegia and 100% disability after being hit by a car, and claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 5,16,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs 15,25,600 by ass

CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRYversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2023 INSC 25017 March 2023Disposed off

The Archbishop of the Syro‑Malabar Church, Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, was charged in several complaints alleging conspiracy and fraud in the disposal of church immovable property. An earlier complaint filed in a different court was dismissed under Section 203 of the CrPC for non‑prosecution. The trial court in Kak

AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2023 INSC 25717 March 2023Directions issued

The petitioner, brother of a murder victim, sought transfer of the criminal trial from West Bengal to Assam, alleging bias, witness intimidation, and procedural irregularities including a state‑issued notification to withdraw prosecution. The High Court set aside the withdrawal order and directed the trial to continue,

MS. XversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 25217 March 2023Disposed off

Ms. X, a model, complained that the accused businessman lured her under the pretext of modelling work and raped her in a hotel room. The FIR was initially filed under Sections 354, 354‑B and 506 IPC, and later, after her supplementary statements and a medico‑legal report, Section 376 IPC (rape) was added. The High Cour

NEERAJ DUTTAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2023 INSC 24517 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Electricity Inspector, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 10,000 to facilitate the installation of an electricity meter. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of a shadow‑witness (PW‑5) and on the recovery of cash from the a

NAVAL KISHOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 97217 March 2015Dismissed

Naval Kishore was convicted under IPC sections 498A (cruelty), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) for the death of his wife Jyoti, who was found burned and asphyxiated. The prosecution proved that Jyoti had been subjected to repeated cruelty by Kishore and his in‑laws, and that she was suffocated

M. MAHENDAR KUMARversusM. MANI & ORS.

2015 INSC 23217 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M. Mahendar Kumar, an accused in Crime No.147 of 2009, challenged a Madras High Court order that, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., transferred the investigation to the CBCID, Chennai. The transfer was sought by the de facto complainant, M. Mani, who had previously applied under Section 173(8) for further investigation

VESA HOLDINGS P. LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2015 INSC 22817 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

VESA Holdings Ltd and its directors entered into a time‑bound settlement agreement with a former bank official who was to receive a consultancy fee for facilitating the settlement of a loan. The fee was to be paid in two instalments, the first upfront and the balance upon completion of the settlement, which was conditi

RAVINDRA PAL SINGHversusSANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL & ORS.

2011 INSC 22017 March 2011Disposed off

The father of a deceased student filed a transfer petition under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that his son was killed in a fake police encounter in Dehradun and that the local police continued to exert undue influence over the CBI investigation. The petitioner claimed threats from police offic

KRISHNA RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2009 INSC 35617 March 2009Dismissed

Krishna Ram, a Patwari, was accused of demanding and accepting Rs.500 as a bribe for issuing a favourable land lease report. The complainant, Gurmukh Singh, arranged a trap in which the money was marked with phenolphthalein and handed to the accused, who was later caught with the cash and a pink‑stained shirt. The tria

MAKTOOL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1999 INSC 11117 March 1999Disposed off

The appellant, Maktool Singh, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, seeking suspension of the sentence pending appeal. The High Court refused suspension, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether Section 32A of th

ANIL PHUKANversusSTATE OF ASSAM

1993 INSC 9617 March 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Anil Phukan and his brothers were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of Trinayan Chandra Baruah, based primarily on the testimony of a single eye‑witness, the deceased's nephew. The Supreme Court examined whether a conviction can rest on such testimony without independent corroboration and wh

SURESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

1981 INSC 7017 March 1981Case Partly allowed

Suresh, a domestic servant, was convicted of murdering his employer Geeta and her three‑year‑old son Anil and of attempting to murder the five‑year‑old Sunil. The conviction rested on the testimony of Sunil, a five‑year‑old child who was not sworn, and on corroborative evidence linking Suresh to the crime. The trial co

RAKESH MITTALversusAJAY PAL GUPTA @ SONU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 16117 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a complainant, filed an FIR alleging that the accused, Ajay Pal Gupta (also known as Sonu Chaudhary), conspired with others to cheat him of over ₹11.5 crore by supplying foodgrains and using forged documents. The accused was arrested after a 1.5‑year abscondment and his bail application was rejected by t

PARAMESHWARIversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

2026 INSC 16417 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court convicted two private respondents for offences under Sections 307, 324 and 326 of the IPC for stabbing a victim, sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each. The High Court, on revision, upheld the conviction but reduced the custodial term to the two months already se

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusT.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY

2025 INSC 22917 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order quashing FIR No. 56 of 2023, which had been registered against public servant T.N. Sudhakar Reddy for alleged disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that a preliminary inquiry was mandatory be

SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHUversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 24217 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu, was charged with offences under Sections 420, 201, 120‑B read with Section 34 of the IPC in a crypto‑currency scam involving about Rs.4 crore, of which Rs.35 lakh was attributed to him. He had been in custody since December 2023 while the trial, conducted before a Chief Judicial M

HITESH UMESHBHAI MASHRUversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2025 INSC 24617 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru, was charged under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code for cheating and a sexual offence, with an FIR lodged on 16 July 2022. The Gujarat High Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail, but the Supreme Court had earlier granted him protection against arr

JAIDEEP BOSEversusM/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 24117 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant filed a private criminal defamation complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that fourteen news articles published in various newspapers defamed the authenticity of paintings to be auctioned by the complainant. The trial magistrate took cognizance, registered the complaint and issued summons to the acc

RASHMI BEHLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 13017 February 2015

The petitioner, a 22‑year‑old woman from Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that she was abducted, repeatedly assaulted and raped by her father and his accomplices, and that the police failed to record her statement under Section 164 CrPC or conduct a medical examination under Section 164A C

RATTIRAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF M. P. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2012 INSC 9417 February 2012

The appellants were convicted by a Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for offences under the IPC. They challenged the conviction on the ground that the Special Court, being a Court of Session, had taken cognizance without a committal order as required by S

K.ANBAZHAGANversusSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 11817 February 2004Dismissed

The petitioners sought to modify a Supreme Court order that had transferred criminal proceedings against them from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They argued that the prevailing tension between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the Cauvery water dispute, the threat posed

RAMJI PATEL AND ORS.versusNAGRLK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 8417 February 2000

The Supreme Court heard Special Leave Petitions filed by dairy owners (including Ramji Patel) who had set up dairies in the villages of Lalpur and Gwarighat, which were earlier listed as "excepted villages" under the Madhya Pradesh Cattle (Control) Act, 1978. The petitioners argued that a municipal resolution dated 21‑

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC.versusO.C. KUTTAN AND ORS. ETC.

1999 INSC 6717 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

On July 23, 1996 a FIR was lodged under IPC sections 366A, 372, 376 and 344 r/w 34 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act based on a victim's detailed statement of exploitation and sexual assault. Five influential accused filed writ petitions in the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, and the High Court, a

M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 1917 February 1986Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of Delhi residents challenging two orders that prohibited Shriram Foods & Fertiliser Industries from operating its caustic‑chlorine plant in a densely populated area of Delhi. After a series of oleum‑gas leak

MOHANLAL GANGARAM GEHANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1982 INSC 2217 February 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani, was convicted under s.326 IPC for stabbing an injured man. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the admissibility of a doctor’s hospital‑register statement that named the assailant as "Tiny" (originally written as "Tony"), the applicability of Section 145 of the Evidence Act to

SHADAKSHARIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2024 INSC 4217 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging that the Village Accountant (respondent No.2), a public servant, colluded to create fake land and death documents for illegal gain. The investigating officer sought sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.PC to prosecute the respondent, but the competent authority refused, leading the H

JABIR & ORSversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2023 INSC 4817 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The child H, aged about seven, went missing on 8 October 1999 and his body was discovered two days later in a sugarcane field. The father filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 19 November 1999, leading to an FIR on 21 November 1999. The trial court convicted the three accused under Sections 302, 364 and 201

YOGENDRA @ JOGENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 5417 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Yogendra Singh, was convicted under IPC sections 302, 326A and 460 for throwing acid on his former lover, Smt. Ruby, resulting in her death and injuring her relatives. The trial court and High Court affirmed the conviction and imposed the death penalty, relying heavily on the victim's dying declaration a

HIMANSHUversusB. SHIVAMURTHY & ANR.

2019 INSC 5317 January 2019Disposed off

The appellant, a director of Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., borrowed Rs 4,15,000 from the respondent and issued a cheque on the company's behalf, which later bounced. A notice of demand was served only on the appellant, not on the company, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Ac

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