Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5,133 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,801–3,000.

M/S GREEN EARTH ASPHALT & POWER P. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. P.S.O. & ORS.

2008 INSC 93113 August 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant, M/s Green Earth Asphalt & Power P. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging offences by the firm and its partners. The High Court, invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the entire criminal proceeding, reasoning that the compla

MALWA COTTON & SPINNING MILLS LTD.versusVIRSA SINGH SIDHU & ORS.

2008 INSC 93413 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against its former director, Virsa Singh Sidhu. The director claimed to have resigned before the disputed cheques

ARJUN MAHTOversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2008 INSC 93713 August 2008Dismissed

On 15 March 1983, a group of armed men entered the house of the informant Yusuf Ali Khan, injured him, his father and brother, and looted household property, constituting a dacoity. The trial court convicted five appellants under Section 396 IPC, later altered by the High Court to Section 395 IPC with a reduced sentenc

STATE OF GUJARATversusNARENDRA K. AMIN

2007 INSC 82813 August 2007Case Allowed

In a murder case, the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC to Deputy Superintendent of Police Narendra K. Amin. The State of Gujarat appealed, contending that the court failed to consider the prosecution’s apprehension that the accused could influence or coerce witnesses and that custo

DASHRATH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2004 INSC 44913 August 2004

The case arose from a violent dispute over a piece of land in which the victim, Pratap Singh, was struck on the head with a kanta and later died after 38 days of medical treatment. The trial court convicted both appellants, Dashrath Singh and Raja Ram, under Section 302 (murder) and related offences, but the High Court

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAJA RAM

2003 INSC 38813 August 2003Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan charged Rajaram under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of five persons. The trial court convicted him, relying mainly on extra‑judicial confessions to two witnesses (PW‑3 and PW‑4) and on circumstantial evidence such as his presence at the scene, suspicious conduct, b

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusMAN SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 38913 August 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Man Singh and three others for the murder of Dharamchand under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, also charging them under Section 324 r/w 34. The trial court relied on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses (PW‑4 and PW‑7) whose statements were recorded under Section 164 CrPC,

BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2002 INSC 33213 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted by a Sessions Court of murder charges under Sections 302 and 302/114 IPC. The State's appeal against the acquittal was dismissed by the High Court on a limitation ground, after which the informant filed a criminal revision under Section 401 of the CrPC. The High Court set aside the acquitt

DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAOversusMR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 87313 August 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a former Indian Navy captain, was detained in 1988 on suspicion of carrying atomic and defence secrets and was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act after consent from the Attorney General and authorisation from the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy

STATE OF U.P.versusRAMESH PRASAD MISRA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 88113 August 1996Case Partly allowed

The case concerned the murder of Urmila Devi, aged 19, who was strangulated and her body subsequently burnt. The trial court convicted her husband, Ramesh Prasad Misra, under IPC sections 302, 201 and 498‑A and sentenced him to death, while his mother was convicted under sections 201 and 498‑A; the Allahabad High Court

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusLALLOO & OTHERS.

1985 INSC 17413 August 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Laloo and three others with the murder of Babu Jaleshwar Singh on 24 September 1974. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses (PW1‑3), corroborative statements of PW5 and PW6, medical evidence of a fatal neck wound, and a First Information Report (FIR) prepared b

SAGARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2026 INSC 69213 July 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a minor of 16½ years at the time, was charged with murder (IPC s.302) and related offences. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment under JJ Act 2015 s.15 and ordered that the case be transferred to the Children’s Court as an adult trial under s.18(3). The Children’s Court tri

MATHEW ALEXANDERversusMOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.

2023 INSC 62113 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's son was driving a Maruti Alto that collided with a gas tanker lorry, killing him and five passengers. The police filed an FIR under IPC sections 279 and 304A, but the charges against the son abated due to his death. After a further investigation, the police submitted a final report stating the accident

BARUN CHANDRA THAKURversusMASTER BHOLU & ANR.

2022 INSC 71613 July 2022Dismissed

The case concerns a 16‑year‑old accused (Bholu) of murder, whose preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was held by the Juvenile Justice Board to warrant trial as an adult. The Board relied on a psychologist’s IQ report and a Social Investigation Repo

NOORULLA KHANversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2021 INSC 33013 July 2021Dismissed

The Sandur Gram Panchayat and its chief officer were convicted under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction, holding that the chief officer, as a public servant, was protected by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedur

GIRLSH KUMAR SUNEJAversusC.B.L.

2017 INSC 61513 July 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld its earlier order that any prayer for stay or to impede the progress of investigations or trials in the coal block allocation cases must be made only before the Supreme Court, thereby limiting the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The Court held that this restriction is perm

VIJAY MALLYAversusENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE

2015 INSC 49313 July 2015Dismissed

Vijay Mallya, Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to appear before the Enforcement Directorate regarding alleged violations of foreign exchange rules in a Benetton advertising agreement. He failed to appear on several summons, leading to a

MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEENversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2011 INSC 48713 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Mustkeem, Nandu and Arun were convicted for the murder of Ram Pal Yadav under IPC s.302/34 and the Arms Act based largely on circumstantial evidence, hostile eyewitnesses, and weapons recovered after the accused’s disclosure. The Supreme Court found that key witnesses had turned hostile, statements were ret

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusANNEGOWDA

2006 INSC 42513 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed an appeal against a High Court order that allowed the accused, Annegowda, to defer the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) until the trials of ten other related cases were completed. The accused faced eleven charge sheets for alleged misappropr

BHUPINDER SINGH AND ORS.versusJARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.

2006 INSC 42713 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were arrested for a dowry death under Section 304B(8) of the IPC and applied for bail, contending that the police challan had not been filed within the statutory period. The trial magistrate rejected bail, holding that the challan was filed within 90 days, while the Sessions Judge granted bail, interpret

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusS. NARASIMHA KUMAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 42813 July 2006Disposed off

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court order acquitting several accused, including D.V. Chandrasekhar (A‑3). While the appeal under Article 136 was pending, Chandrasekhar died, and his wife filed a petition asserting that the appeal had abated. The Court examined whether an appea

BRIJLALA PD. SINHA ETC .versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1998 INSC 24913 July 1998Disposed off

The case involved six police officers who were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the killing of three civilians in a purported police encounter. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, chiefly the testimony of two constables (PW 7 and PW 8), forensic reports and the recovery of the vi

INDERJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1995 INSC 39613 July 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of several government officers accused of embezzling funds allocated for a rural employment scheme in Punjab. The prosecution relied on the report of a Superintending Engineer, thumb‑impression comparisons, alleged extra‑judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence to prov

SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1994 INSC 24613 July 1994Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Urshia Bahri and her two children, for which Suresh Chandra Bahri, Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were convicted under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver, Ram Sagar Vishwakarma, whose statement was found trustworthy

STATE OF U. P.versusMOHD .. IQRAM & ANR.

2011 INSC 41313 June 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s acquittal of two accused (Mohd Iqram and another) in the murder of Rashmi. Police, on routine patrol, heard shrieks, saw three persons scaling a wall, apprehended two, and were led to the victim who later died of strangulation. The trial court convi

SYED PEDA AOWLIAversusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD

2008 INSC 75213 June 2008Dismissed

Five persons were tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted all, finding the prosecution’s case unproved. The State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the CrPC. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of four accused but convicted the appellant, Syed

SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD GHOSH (DEAD)versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2008 INSC 75413 June 2008Disposed off

Shankar Prasad Ghosh was convicted under several provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court with altered sentences. He filed a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court, but died while the appeal was pending. Five years after his death, his relatives

NEHRU @ JAWAHARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2008 INSC 75713 June 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Nehru @ Jawahar, was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for raping a girl who initially claimed to be 14 years old, later found to be about 16. The appellant argued that the prosecution case was inconsistent because the medical examination was recorded at 9:15 AM while the FIR was lodge

TALARI NARESHversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

2026 INSC 48613 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly killing Shiva Shankar after a dispute arising from an elopement involving the appellant's sister. The prosecution's case relied mainly on the testimony of the victim's mother (an interested

TUKESH SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 68313 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder and related offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the IPC based on the testimony of several injured eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses either knew some of the accused before the incident or did not, but none of them positively identified the accused

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

VEERENDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 56513 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Veerendra, a cousin of the victim’s mother, was found to have raped and strangled to death an eight‑year‑old girl, the daughter of his cousin sister. While in police custody he disclosed the location of the body, which was recovered from a dilapidated building. Post‑mortem and forensic reports confirmed

MEENA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 56813 May 2022Disposed off

The case concerned an appeal by Meena Devi, the wife of a murder victim, against the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to the convicted accused, Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Babu, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had exercised its discretionary power judiciously,

STATE THROUGH CBI, CHENNAIversusV. ARUL KUMAR

2016 INSC 118513 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the CBI, appealed against a High Court order that struck down a tender of pardon granted by a Metropolitan Magistrate to five approvers in a corruption case triable by a Special Judge. The prosecution had filed a charge‑sheet before the Magistrate and obtained a pardon under Section 306 of the

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusUNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS.

2016 INSC 42713 May 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal defamation) and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners argued that criminal defamation infringes the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article

PRAKASH KADAM AND ETC. ETC.versusRAMPRASAD VISHWANATH GUPTA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 39613 May 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of several police officers who had been granted bail by a Sessions Court in a murder case involving a alleged fake police encounter and contract killing. The prosecution alleged that the accused police abducted and murdered the victim, fabricated an encounter, and acted as contract

RUCHI MAJOOversusSANJEEV MAJOO

2011 INSC 39513 May 2011Disposed off

The mother, Ruchi Majoo, filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim custody of her 11‑year‑old son who had been residing in Delhi for three years, while the father, Sanjeev Majoo, contested jurisdiction, claiming the child’s ordinary residence was in the United States and invoking the prin

S.P. GUPTAversusASHUTOSH GUPTA

2010 INSC 32213 May 2010Dismissed

A criminal complaint under Section 420 read with Section 120‑B IPC was filed by the father of the respondent alleging that the petitioner, S.P. Gupta, as the attorney of accused No.1, misrepresented the ownership of a property, assuring it was free of encumbrances and that accused No.1 was the sole owner. The trial cou

JASWANT & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2009 INSC 80413 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were named in an FIR for several IPC offences and a charge sheet filed on 12‑Feb‑1993 listed them as absconding, with the investigation still pending. The Sessions Court, despite no charge sheet being filed against the appellants and the investigation incomplete, took cognizance of the offence and framed

RAM SINGH & ORS.versusRAM NIWAS & ANR.

2009 INSC 80713 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an FIR alleging assault and homicide in which the appellants were not named in the charge-sheet. The complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to have the appellants summoned as accused; the trial judge rejected it, but the High Court set aside that o

KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA AND ORS.versusMEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI AND ANR.

2009 INSC 80213 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a practising advocate, filed a complaint alleging that the construction and tarring of a road by an architect (appellant No.6) at the direction of the managing director and other directors of a company (appellants No.1‑5) caused wrongful restraint to him and his parents in accessing their house. The tri

SUBRAMANIAMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2009 INSC 80513 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Subramaniam was charged with murder (s.302 IPC), dowry harassment (s.498A IPC) and a dowry prohibition offence (s.4 DP Act) after his wife was found dead in their home. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court convicted him for murder, relying on the fact that the couple lived together, the alleg

SANTOSH KUMAR SATISHBHUSHAN BARIYARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 80813 May 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, while his co‑accused received life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the legality of the Sessions Judge's grant of pardon to the approver (PW‑1) under Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and argue

FATMA BIBI AHMED PATELversusSTATE. OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2008 INSC 64513 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a citizen of Mauritius, was served with a summons after a complaint by her daughter‑in‑law alleging physical and mental torture, allegedly committed in Kuwait. All parties were residents of Kuwait and were in India on visitor visas when the complaint was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizan

RAMACHANDRANversusR. UDHAYAKUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 64913 May 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted in a murder case and sought, through a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, to have the investigation transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a fresh probe. The Madras High Court ordered the case to be re‑investigated afresh by the CBI. The appellant challenged this directi

TULSIRAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2008 INSC 65113 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly assaulting two passengers with lethal weapons. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the prosecution's key witnesses, noting that the star witness (PW5) was declared hostile and gave inconsistent st

STATE OF PUNJABversusPREM SAGAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 65813 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for illegally transporting 2,000 litres of rectified spirit and were sentenced by the trial court to one year imprisonment. The High Court, noting that the offence occurred 19 years earlier, reduced the sentence by granting probation unde

MARY ANGEL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1999 INSC 25113 May 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by accused A3‑A6 challenging a Madras High Court order that imposed Rs 10,000 costs on each of them for filing a frivolous revision under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court had imposed the costs to deter abuse of process after the appellants suppressed

A.K. SINGH AND ORS.versusUTTARAKHAND JAN MORCHA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 24713 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the Allahabad High Court’s extensive directions issued in the wake of the 1994 Uttarakhand agitation, which ordered massive compensation to victims, large fund allocations for regional development, and pre‑emptive rulings on the need for sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, the composition

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS.

1994 INSC 21213 May 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a trial before a Special Judge concerning alleged conspiracy and corruption in the Idamalayar Dam project. The Special Public Prosecutor sought, under Section 321 of the CrPC, permission to withdraw prosecution against one accused, G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, on the ground that there was no material to

RAMJI SURJYA & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1983 INSC 6913 May 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Ramji Surjya Padvi and Bhikji Surjya Padvi were charged under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of Prabhat Singh. The trial court acquitted them, finding the sole eye‑witness, the victim's wife (PW‑2), unreliable due to contradictions, lack of corroboration, a 24‑hour delay in filing the FIR,

ANOSH EKKAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2026 INSC 35713 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The former Jharkhand minister Anosh Ekka was convicted in two separate cases arising from the same set of allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and misusing his office. The High Court rejected his application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, prompting a special leave pet

KAMATCHIversusLAKSHMI NARAYANAN

2022 INSC 42213 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2018 seeking protection under Sections 17 and 18. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings, arguing that the application was barred by limitat

NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 25313 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd lodged an FIR alleging forgery and fraud against three respondents under several IPC sections. The respondents filed a petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR and obtained a blanket interim order from the Bombay High Court directing the po

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP

2021 INSC 25213 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, a Patwari, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.2,800 for issuing a domicile/OBC certificate, as recorded in a telephone transcript. The Special Judge, after hearing the prosecution, found a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and framed a charge. The High Court

K. K. MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2018 INSC 34113 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

K.K. Mishra, a Congress spokesperson, allegedly made three statements about the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh during a press conference. The State Government sanctioned the public prosecutor to file a complaint under Section 199(2) of the CrPC on the same day, leading to Mishra's conviction under Section 500 IPC for

SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS.versusSTATE OF A. P.

2017 INSC 34713 April 2017Dismissed

The case involved a violent incident in which two persons were killed and an injured witness (PW.5) was assaulted; the trial court acquitted 19 accused, finding inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and doubting medical evidence. The State appealed, and the High Court convicted the surviving accused, relying on the i

GANGA DHAR KALITAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 32113 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant Ganga Dhar Kalita was accused of forging signatures of three persons, including a minor, to execute a power of attorney for the sale of land, leading to an FIR under several IPC sections. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quash of the criminal proce

INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHERversusBATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 31913 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of Police filed a criminal appeal after the High Court quashed proceedings against several Sub‑Registrars on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been obtained. The respondents were alleged to have conspired with stamp vendors and fabricated records to

RALLIS INDIA LTD.versusPODURU VIDYA BHUSAN & ORS.

2011 INSC 29613 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Rallis India Ltd. filed criminal complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a partnership firm and its partners had issued dishonoured cheques. The complaint specifically stated that the respondents were partners who managed the day‑to‑day affairs of the firm, making their lia

M.C. ALI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2010 INSC 20713 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by six accused who had been acquitted by the trial court but later convicted by the High Court for murder, attempted murder and offences under sections 149 and 34 of the IPC. The trial court had found the prosecution's evidence unreliable, noting the darkness of the night, lack of tor

MAHTAB SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 48213 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Mahtab Singh and his son were acquitted by the trial court of murder under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and of an offence under the Arms Act, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court reversed the acquittal, relying on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses despit

RAVINDRA KUMAR MADHANLAL GOENKA & ANR.versusM/S. RUGMINI RAM RAGHAV SPINNERS P. LTD.

2009 INSC 48513 April 2009Dismissed

The appellants, commission agents dealing in cotton, were sued by the respondent for criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonest misappropriation and conspiracy under IPC sections 406, 420, 384 and 120‑B. They filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the d

RAMA PASWAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2007 INSC 42113 April 2007Dismissed

The case arose from an FIR alleging that the accused raped PW4 on 30 May 1992. After a protracted trial (1994‑2004), the accused sought to recall the victim for further cross‑examination under Section 311 of the CrPC, claiming that the parties had settled the dispute outside court and that the informant could not ident

GOMTIversusTHAKURDAS AND ORS.

2007 INSC 42213 April 2007Case Partly allowed

The complainant appealed against the Allahabad High Court's orders granting bail to five convicted respondents under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while their appeals against convictions for murder and related offences were pending. The High Court had justified the bail on the ground that the acc

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBIRAM LAL

2005 INSC 20713 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Biram Lal for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 376 and 450 IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and four witnesses. The High Court upheld the conviction for house‑trespass (Section 450) but set aside the

R.SARALAversusT.S.VELU

2000 INSC 21613 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the suicide of a young bride, Selvi, after which the police investigated and filed a charge‑sheet against her husband and his mother under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. Dissatisfied that the sister‑in‑law and her father were not named, the deceased's father approached the Madras High Court under Secti

AHMED BIN SALEMversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1999 INSC 18113 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was accused of throwing bombs that injured a shopkeeper and caused the deaths of two persons. His name did not appear in the FIR or in the initial police statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, but was later added during trial. The prosecution’s case relied on three eye‑witnesses whose statemen

JASHUBA BHARATSINH GOHIL AND ORS .versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1994 INSC 15313 April 1994Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the murder‑conspiracy case of 20 September 1984 in which twelve persons were tried for offences including murder, unlawful assembly and illegal possession of arms. The trial court convicted all accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the Gujarat High Court upheld the convictions, acq

ALLAUDDIN MIAN & ORS. SHARIF MIAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1989 INSC 13113 April 1989Case Partly allowed

The appellants, six members of an unlawful assembly, were convicted for the murder of two infant girls while attempting to kill the father, Baharan Mian. The trial court sentenced the two principal assailants (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) to death and the others to life imprisonment, later altering some convictions under Sect

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusDEEPAK

2019 INSC 36013 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The victim, Jyoti Sharma, an employee of Central Bank, alleged repeated harassment by Deepak Bhamawat, including a fraudulent loan taken in her name, termination from her job, and eviction from her residence. She committed suicide by consuming poison and, in her dying declaration, blamed Deepak for her harassment. The

RIPUDAMAN SINGHversusBALKRISHNA

2019 INSC 36213 March 2019Disposed off

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, entered into an agreement to sell the land to the respondent and issued two post‑dated cheques for the balance consideration. Both cheques were returned unpaid for insufficient funds, prompting the appellants to issue legal notices and file complaints under Section 138 of th

SATYA PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2013 INSC 16013 March 2013Dismissed

The appellant was accused of murdering his wife after she resisted repeated dowry demands for a television, fridge and cooler, which were accompanied by beatings and harassment. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing a 51‑hour delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements. On appeal, t

DINESH BORTHAKURversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2008 INSC 35513 March 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, Dinesh Borthakur, was convicted by the trial court and the High Court for the murder of his wife Mala Borthakur and adopted daughter Munni under Section 302 IPC, based largely on circumstantial evidence such as a sniffer dog’s proximity to him, the presence of a pesticide bottle, and his alleged lack of

KHILARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2008 INSC 35613 March 2008Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order granting bail to a convicted murderer (respondent No.2) under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while his appeal was pending. The conviction was based on three eye‑witnesses and the trial court had held that the injuries could have been caused by iron rods.

M/S. MEDICAMEN BIOTECH LTD. AND ANR.versusRUBINA BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR

2008 INSC 35913 March 2008Case Allowed

The Drugs Inspector collected a sample of Enalapril Maleate tablets manufactured by M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd., divided it into four parts and sent one part to the Government Analyst, whose report declared the drug sub‑standard. The appellant disputed the report, sent two written notices within 28 days expressing inte

P.K. CHOUDHURYversusCOMMANDER, 48 BRTF (GREF)

2008 INSC 36113 March 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, a Commandant of the 48 BRTF (GREF), was alleged to have committed offences under IPC sections 166 and 167 between 5 January 1989 and 11 February 1992. A complaint petition was filed only in November 2000, based on a 1996 report, and the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 7 November 2000. The appellan

HEM CHANDversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2008 INSC 36213 March 2008Dismissed

Hem Chand, Executive Director (Vigilance) of a government company, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets beyond his known income. He filed an application for discharge, relying on an Income Tax assessment order and his asset declaration, and submitted these documents to the Spec

B.S. JOSHI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 17913 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and his relatives filed a petition to quash an FIR registered by the wife under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 IPC after the parties had settled their matrimonial dispute and were proceeding towards divorce. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences were non‑compoundabl

SMT. PANIBENversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1992 INSC 7813 March 1992Dismissed

The appellant, the mother‑in‑law of the deceased, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning her daughter‑in‑law. The prosecution's case rested on four dying declarations made by the victim, three of which identified the appellant as the assailant. The trial court dismissed these statements, de

R. BANERJEE AND ORS.versusH.D. DUBEY AND ORS

1992 INSC 8013 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

A food inspector seized samples of orange drink and vanaspati ghee from the godowns of Lipton India Ltd and Hindustan Lever Ltd and, after a public analyst’s report, found them adulterated and mis‑branded. Complaints were filed under sections 7 and 16 read with section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 195

MANOJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2026 INSC 15213 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly possessing and diverting government‑quota cement in 1994. The prosecution relied on the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 and the Cement Control Order, 1967, but the Supreme Court

RAMESH A. NAIKAversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC.

2025 INSC 30313 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, his sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law in June 2010, motivated by his disapproval of his sister‑in‑law’s relationship. The trial court sentenced him to death, a judgment affirmed by the Karnataka High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court exam

TAPAS KUMAR PALITversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22213 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was arrested in March 2020 after his vehicle was intercepted and items allegedly linked to Naxalite activities were recovered. He has been in judicial custody for five years, with the trial still ongoing and only 42 of the planned 100 witnesses examined, some of whom have turned hostile. The central issue

VINOD @ NASMULLAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22013 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla was convicted under IPC sections 395 and 397 and Arms Act section 25 for a dacoity involving a bus robbery on 28 September 1993. The prosecution's case rested on a dock identification by a police constable (PW‑9) and the alleged recovery of a country‑made pistol at the time of his arrest,

SATENDER KUMAR ANTILversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2024 INSC 13413 February 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court reviewed the compliance report filed by an amicus curiae regarding the implementation of its earlier directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. It examined whether States, Union Territories, the CBI, and High Courts had adhered to specific directives concerning Sections 41, 41A, 438, 440, 88, 170, 204

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusNIRAJ TYAGI & ORS

2024 INSC 10613 February 2024

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated money‑laundering offences arising from three FIRs and an ECIR filed against India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd (IHFL) and its officers after the financial institution recovered dues from defaulting borrowers under the SARFAESI Act. The borrowers challenged the FIRs and the ECI

NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 13113 February 2017Dismissed

The appellants were admitted to MBBS courses in Madhya Pradesh through a systematic fraud involving computer manipulation, roll‑number tampering and assistance from meritorious candidates. Vyapam cancelled their admissions, a decision upheld by the High Court and earlier by this Court. The appellants sought relief unde

STATE OF M.P.versusMEHTAAB

2015 INSC 11513 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order that reduced the imprisonment of Mehtaab, convicted under IPC sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt), from one year and three months to merely ten days, the period already served. The incident involved Mehtaab laying a naked high‑voltag

SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2013 INSC 9713 February 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, a former minister and MLA, were arrested for alleged misappropriation of funds and charged under several IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions. Although the charge‑sheet and a supplementary charge‑sheet were filed within the 90‑day period prescribed by Section 167(2) of the CrPC, the prosecut

LIFE CONVICT BENGAL @ KHOKA @ PRASANTA SENversusB.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

2013 INSC 10113 February 2013Dismissed

The petitioner, a life convict sentenced under IPC s.302/34, filed a contempt petition claiming that, having served over 20 years with remission, he was entitled to release under the West Bengal Correctional Services Act and a Supreme Court order. The State of West Bengal, through its Sentence Review Board, declined to

AWANI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusTHE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

2013 INSC 10213 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Awani Kumar Upadhyay, an Additional District & Sessions Judge, challenged severe strictures placed against him by the Allahabad High Court in a second appeal judgment, which also directed that the remarks be sent to the Chief Justice for possible disciplinary action. He filed a modification application to have the rema

RAM PAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2009 INSC 18413 February 2009Dismissed

The incident on 1 October 2006 resulted in the death of Brijesh Kumar Singh and injuries to Manvender Singh. The FIR named Ram Pal Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Singh, but they were not listed as accused in the charge‑sheet. During trial, PW‑1 (Kamlesh Singh) identified the appellants as particip

STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAVI KANT SHARMA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 13413 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi sought to compel the accused, Ravi Kant Sharma and others, to be supplied with the "gists" of statements recorded by the investigating officer during interrogation. The trial court held that such gists amounted to statements under Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and must b

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. JANKI DEVI PAL

2003 INSC 8313 February 2003Dismissed

In 1995 Janki Devi Pal was elected Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Complaints against her led the State Government to order a preliminary inquiry under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Removal of Pramukhs, Up‑Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 19

SEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 8613 February 2001Case Partly allowed

A senior government officer was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The investigation took four years (1986‑1990) and the government took another two years to grant sanction, after which a charge‑sheet was filed in 1993. The trial progressed slowly

JASWANT SINGH & ORSversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

2023 INSC 3113 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, convicted of violent offences and serving life sentences, applied for premature release under Section 432(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Special Judge rejected their applications but did not provide the detailed reasons required by law. The Supreme Court, recalling its earlier judgment in Laxma

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS.versusDR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3513 January 2020Disposed off

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) took cognizance of media reports of large‑scale child trafficking in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, and sought information from the state police and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR). The Additional Director General of Police (ADG

SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHERversusSATPAL AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 95113 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, claiming to be landlords, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the respondents who asserted they were tenants of a temple. The respondents pointed to earlier proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wher

MADHUversusSTATE OF KERALA

2012 INSC 2713 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Madhu and his co-accused Sibi were convicted for robbery and murder of Padmini Devi based largely on confessional statements to police and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the confessions were inadmissible because they did not lead to the discovery of any unknown fact, violating Sectio

VIJAY KUMAR ARORAversusSTATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2010 INSC 4013 January 2010Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Arora was convicted of murdering his wife, who died from over 90% burn injuries. The prosecution proved that the death was homicidal, not suicidal or accidental, through medical evidence, the victim’s verbal dying declaration before six witnesses, and evidence of physical and mental cruelty and extra‑marita

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBHUP RAM

1997 INSC 1613 January 1997

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Bhup Singh, who was convicted of murdering his wife, Chawli, based on her dying declaration and ballistic evidence. The High Court had set aside the conviction, holding that the dying declaration was invalid because it was recorded in Hindi rather than the Bagri language

STATE OF RAIASTHANversusANI @ HANIF AND ORS.

1997 INSC 1713 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of six accused in a double murder case. The trial judge had interjected during the cross‑examination of an injured eyewitness (PW‑3) to clarify a confusion, which the High Court held improper. The Supreme Court held that under Section

RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1987 INSC 1013 January 1987Disposed off

The appellant, Ram Kumar, a member of the forces charged with maintaining public order, was charged with using excessive force while discharging his duty. The trial court took cognizance of the offence without obtaining the prior sanction required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Punjab & Haryana H

AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2024 INSC 104012 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Sardar was convicted by a Fast Track Court for offences under Sections 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence. The appellant contended that the High Court had merely reiterated the trial cour

CHANDI PULIYAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2022 INSC 127612 December 2022

The appellant was acquitted in 2010 of offences under Sections 148, 149, 448, 364 and 506 IPC arising from FIR No. 61/2002. In 2011 a second FIR was lodged alleging that the appellant and co‑accused caused the death of the informant's father, a matter discovered only after a skeleton was identified. The appellant sough

M. A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2018 INSC 119312 December 2018Disposed off

The appellant was convicted of murdering six members of a family and sentenced to death by the trial court, a sentence confirmed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. On review, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's severe socio‑economic deprivation, lack of adequate legal representation, and

RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 119412 December 2018Disposed off

The appellant was convicted of raping and murdering a three‑year‑old girl and was sentenced to death, a sentence confirmed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The appellant filed review petitions, which were initially dismissed but later restored after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Arif alias Ash

AJAY KUMAR PALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2014 INSC 86712 December 2014Case Allowed

Ajay Kumar Pal was sentenced to death by a Special CBI Judge on 9 April 2007, a sentence confirmed by the Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court on 16 March 2010. He filed a mercy petition on 10 April 2010, which was forwarded immediately but only disposed of after a delay of three years and ten months, with the Pr

FAKHRUZAMMAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2013 INSC 83112 December 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, was removed from service by the Inspector‑General of Police under the Jharkhand Police Manual and subsequently charged with several IPC offences relating to the death of a detainee. He challenged the magistrate’s cognizance on the ground that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal

DEOKI PANJHIYARAversusSHASHI BHUSHAN NARAYAN AZAD & ANR.

2012 INSC 58612 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a writ petition challenging the interim maintenance granted to his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that she was already married to another man, as evidenced by a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The trial court rejec

DR. MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 58412 December 2012Disposed off

The case arose from a 1992 altercation in Ajmer that resulted in the death of Idris and injuries to several persons, leading to two FIRs (cross‑FIRs). The trial court convicted four accused (Yasir, Khalil, Akil and Farukh) under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonmen

U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDversusDR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI & ANR.

2008 INSC 141912 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. Pollution Control Board granted conditional consent to Modi Carpets Ltd. to discharge trade effluent, but the company discharged untreated effluent in violation of the consent. The Board filed a complaint under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 against the company and its

VAMAN NARAIN GHIYAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2008 INSC 142012 December 2008Dismissed

Vaman Narain Ghiya, accused of smuggling antiques, was charged under IPC sections 413, 457, 380 and 411. He argued that he should be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on the fact that he had obtained bail in six of ten cases, had been in custody for over two and a half

TARSEM SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2008 INSC 142112 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Tarsem Singh was convicted under Section 3048 of the IPC for the death of his wife Amriko, alleged to have been caused by dowry‑related cruelty. The prosecution alleged harassment for insufficient dowry and childlessness, but the FIR and evidence did not show any demand for dowry made "soon before" her death. The Supre

RANGAIAHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2008 INSC 142212 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Rangaiah was charged with murder and causing hurt after a quarrel in his village resulted in the death of Maruchhaiah. The trial court acquitted him, finding material discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including inconsistencies between the dying declaration and witness testimonies, and noting th

RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2008 INSC 142312 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved two cross‑FIRs arising from a violent clash in Simultand village where the deceased Nagender Nath Das was killed and several others injured. The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted him and his relatives, while the accused claimed they acted in self‑defence against the deceased’s alleged att

OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2008 INSC 142612 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The incident occurred on 15 August 1979 when Om Prakash and six others, armed with firearms, entered the house of Mewa Ram during a Janamashtami puja and fired shots, resulting in the death of Ram Rakshpal. The trial court convicted all seven accused of murder, but the Allahabad High Court upheld conviction only of Om

M/S. HARMAN ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA LTD.

2008 INSC 142712 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, National Panasonic India Ltd., filed a complaint in Delhi alleging that a cheque drawn and presented in Chandigarh was dishonoured and that a notice was ser

UMAR MOHAMMAD & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007 INSC 126812 December 2007Disposed off

The case arose from a night‑time attack on three brothers (Jharmal, Juhru and Mubin) allegedly over a property and personal dispute, in which twelve armed men assaulted the victims, killing the two brothers and injuring Mubin. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, medical autopsy reports and a First Information

ANIL KUMAR GOELversusKISHAN CHAND KAURA

2007 INSC 127112 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant issued a cheque on 31 March 1998 which was dishonoured on two occasions; notices were served and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 28 November 1998. The appellant sought to quash the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the one‑month limita

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

ALOKE NATH DUTTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006 INSC 99112 December 2006Disposed off

The case involved the murder of Biswanath Dutta, allegedly committed by his brother Aloke Nath Dutta to facilitate the sale of family property. Aloke Nath made an extra‑judicial confession admitting to the killing, while co‑accused Mrinal Dutta gave a judicial confession that was later retracted, alleging police tortur

BABLU @ MUBARIK HUSSAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2006 INSC 99812 December 2006Dismissed

The appellant, Bablu (Mubarik Hussain), was convicted of murdering his wife, three minor daughters and a minor son by strangulation. The trial court relied on an extrajudicial confession, the appellant's presence at the crime scene and the recovery of the wife's earring to uphold a conviction under Section 302 IPC and

SUSHIL MURMUversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2003 INSC 70812 December 2003Dismissed

The appellant, Sushil Murmu, a tribal and illiterate man, sacrificed a nine‑year‑old child before Goddess Kali, severed the child's head and disposed of it in a pond. He was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the oth

ARUN PASWAN, S.I.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2003 INSC 71012 December 2003Dismissed

The District and Sessions Judge of Sasaram ordered a police officer, S.I. Arun Paswan, to produce a case diary, which he failed to do, leading to a show‑cause notice under Section 349 CrPC. While the judge was hearing another matter, a group of police officers in plain clothes and uniform shouted abusive slogans outsid

PRAKASH DHAWAL KHAIRNAR (PATIL)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 60612 December 2001Disposed off

The case involved a dispute over agricultural land that led Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) to murder his brother, mother, sister‑in‑law and five other relatives. The prosecution relied on strong circumstantial evidence—motive, blood‑stained clothing, a shoulder injury, eyewitness identification, and the confessional s

STATE OF U.P.versusZAKAULLAH

1997 INSC 81412 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The State appealed the acquittal of Revenue Inspector Zakaullah, who was convicted by a trial court for taking a Rs 400 bribe under IPC Sec 161 and the Prevention of Corruption Act Sec 5(2). The bribe was given by Satpal Singh (PW‑5) after a trap was arranged by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, and the seized notes tested p

JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 71812 November 2021Disposed off

The appellant filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud and extortion in a land‑title dispute, leading to an FIR under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 120B IPC. The respondents filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR; the High Court allowed the petitions, quashing the FIR except for the ex

ALI AHMADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2021 INSC 72312 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, were released on bail by the High Court under Section 389 of the CrPC while their appeals were pending. The complainant challenged this release, contending that the High Court failed to comply with the first proviso o

LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 104512 November 2018Dismissed

Petitioners, police personnel of Manipur Police, filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a mandamus to quash oral observations made by the Supreme Court on 30 July 2018 in the EEVFAM case and to obtain the bench's recusal, alleging that those observations would prejudice the investigations and trial. The Court ex

SUKHWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 75112 November 2013Dismissed

The appellant, husband of Karnail Kaur, was charged under Section 304B of the IPC for dowry death after his wife died of poisoning within seven years of marriage. The prosecution proved that the wife had complained of dowry demands for a scooter and refrigerator on 25 June 1991, and she died on 30 June 1991, establishi

LALITA KUMARIversusGOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS.

2013 INSC 74812 November 2013Reference answered

The Constitution Bench examined whether a police officer must register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, or may first conduct a preliminary inquiry to test its veracity. Relying on the literal meaning of

ANJANAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 75312 November 2013Dismissed

Gowramma, a married woman, died from severe burns after allegedly being doused with kerosene by her husband Anjanappa. She gave a dying declaration implicating him, which was recorded by a police officer and endorsed by the attending doctor, who testified that she was conscious and fit to speak. The trial court acquitt

RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 129612 November 2008Disposed off

The appellants and a co‑accused were charged with offences including murder (s.302 IPC) arising from a violent dispute in which the deceased was attacked with lathis. The accused claimed they acted in private defence, asserting that the victim and his brother had assaulted them first. The Supreme Court examined the sta

SITARAM SAO@MUNGERIversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2007 INSC 114512 November 2007Dismissed

The accused were convicted for the abduction, murder and dacoity of Gayatri Devi based largely on the testimony of an approver, Lalit Sanga, whose statement was recorded under Section 306 of the CrPC after he was granted pardon. The High Court had earlier remanded the case, finding procedural lapses in the recording of

VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 46512 November 2002Dismissed

Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contended that the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, lacked jurisdiction because the judge was not a "Special Judge" as defined in Section 3 of the 1988 Act. He argued that the appointment of the judge under a notification issued purs

SUBHASH RAMKUMAR BIND @ VAKIL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2002 INSC 46612 November 2002Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for murder of Harish Bhatia using a 9 mm pistol and a .38 calibre revolver, and were sentenced to death under IPC sections 302/34 and Arms Act section 27(3). The High Court upheld the death sentence, treating the weapons as prohibited arms under the Arms Act based on a government note. The

ALAMGIRversusSTATE (NCT. DELHI)

2002 INSC 46712 November 2002Dismissed

Alamgir, a Pakistani national, travelled to Delhi with his wife Halima and stayed at a hotel. He left her locked in the room on 19 September 1991 and failed to return; her body was later found strangulated. Two slips of paper near the body bore handwriting identified by an expert as Alamgir's. He was arrested in Bombay

GOPALANACHARIversusSTATE OF KERALA

1980 INSC 21512 November 1980Case Allowed

Gopalana Chari, a 71‑year‑old inmate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging illegal detention under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He claimed he was taken from his home at night, held for ten days without trial, and labeled a "habitual" thief despite no conviction. The Court examined whether the

KAMALAKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 98912 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was married to the deceased for four and a half years during which she alleged continuous cruelty and assault by him and his parents. After being left at her parents' house, the deceased poured kerosene on herself and died, leading to charges under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The trial court convict

MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2022 INSC 107312 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The husband (Appellant No.1) and his mother-in-law were convicted under IPC sections 498A (dowry harassment) and 306 (abetment of suicide) for the death of Dr. Amali Victoria, who allegedly suffered mental torture and was compelled to have a child, leading to her suicide in 2014. The prosecution's case relied mainly on

DEVENDRA NATH SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 107112 October 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a former District Manager, challenged a High Court order that directed the magistrate to order further investigation into his alleged role in the misappropriation of foodgrains, despite the magistrate having taken cognizance only against a lower‑level employee. The Supreme Court examined whether the High

BIKRAMJIT SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2020 INSC 58912 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

A hand grenade attack at a public gathering in Amritsar resulted in three deaths and 22 serious injuries. Bikramjit Singh was arrested, remanded to custody, and after 90 days (which expired on 21‑02‑2019) he applied for default bail; the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, claiming he had alre

AMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2020 INSC 58712 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Devinder Singh, who was allegedly attacked by three accused wielding hockey sticks and a knife. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Parminder Singh (PW‑1), a brother of the deceased, while the other two eye‑witnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court examined the

MURUGESAN AND ORS.versusSTATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2012 INSC 46712 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court acquitted 23 accused of charges including criminal conspiracy (s.120B IPC) and murder (s.302 IPC) based on inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, a doubtful dying declaration, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Madras High Court reversed the acquittal of 19 accused, convicting them on the same ch

REV. MOTHER MARYKUTTYversusRENI C. KOTTARAM & ANOTHER

2012 INSC 46912 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent alleged that the appellant, Rev. Mother Marykutty, had issued a post‑dated cheque of Rs.25 lakhs for construction work which later bounced, leading to a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court acquitted the appellant, holding that she had successfully rebutted

STATE OF U.P.versusMUNESH

2012 INSC 47012 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Munesh, who was charged with raping and murdering an 11‑year‑old girl. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC, but the High Court set aside the conviction, citing contradictions in the statements of two eye‑witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) and

PRATAPBHAI HAMIRBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 47112 October 2012Disposed off

The appellant, Pratapbhai Hamirbai Solanki, was accused of conspiring to murder an RTI activist and was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. Bail applications before the Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court were rejected. After the High Court reserved its judg

DIMPLE GUPTA (MINOR)versusRAJIV GUPTA

2007 INSC 105712 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Minor Dimple Gupta, through her mother Narain Dassi, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from Rajiv Gupta, alleging he was her father. The trial magistrate held that she was the illegitimate child of the respondent and ordered maintenance, relying on the mother’s te

RAJINDER SINGH KATOCHversusCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

2007 INSC 106112 October 2007

The appellant, a co‑sharer of a joint family property, alleged that his brother (respondent No.4) unlawfully restrained him from occupying the first floor of the house and complained to the police, but no FIR was registered. He filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court seeking a direction

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusAJIT SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 106212 October 2007Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan charged Ajit Singh and 18 others under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) for allegedly smuggling arms from Pakistan to Punjab for terrorist purposes. Seven of the accused made confessions before a Superintendent of Police under Section 15 of TADA, but the confe

ALL CARGO MOVERS (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusDHANESH BADARMAL JAIN AND ANR.

2007 INSC 106312 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and related companies entered into a contract of carriage to deliver consignments to Kenya. The goods were allegedly delivered without the original Bills of Lading, leading the consignee to claim breach of contract and file a civil suit in the Bombay High Court. More than a year later, th

SARVESH NARAIN SHUKLAversusDAROGA SINGH & ORS.

2007 INSC 106612 October 2007Dismissed

The case concerned a triple murder that occurred on 4 April 1999, where three persons were shot dead from a car that had allegedly collided with a bus. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑5), who were described as chance witnesses, and on medical and forensic evidence linking the i

STATE THROUGH SPE & CBI, APversusM. KRISHNA MOHAN AND ANR.

2007 INSC 108912 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the Special Police Establishment and the CBI, appealed against the High Court's acquittal of a bank manager (M. Krishna Mohan) and a field officer for forging loan documents, forging thumb impressions and misappropriating loan proceeds. The trial court had convicted both, but the High Court se

LALLAN CHAUDHARY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2006 INSC 69612 October 2006Dismissed

The complainant filed a complaint before a Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 452, 323 and 395 IPC. The magistrate endorsed the complaint to the police, but the SHO registered an FIR only under Sections 452, 380 and 323/34, omitting several cognizable offences, espec

POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR.versusFAZRU

2004 INSC 59912 October 2004Disposed off

The appellant filed a second criminal complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC after an earlier complaint was dismissed. The High Court allowed the second complaint, but the appellant argued it was a mere repetition and that the order to issue process was an interlocutory order that could not be revisited. The Supreme C

NARINDERJIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 50312 October 2001Dismissed

The petitioners, directors of several finance companies accused of large‑scale cheating, filed writ petitions under Article 32 claiming that their personal liberty under Article 21 was violated because they were detained in various jails despite obtaining bail in some cases. The Court held that while a petition under A

DADU @ TULSIDASversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2000 INSC 47912 October 2000Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which barred courts and the executive from suspending, remitting or commuting sentences of convicts under the Act. The petitioners argued that the provision violated Articles 14 and 21 by c

SHEELAM RAMESH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1999 INSC 47112 October 1999Dismissed

The appellants, members of the Peoples War Group, were convicted for firing at two ex‑members of the group at a hair‑cutting salon, resulting in the death of one victim. The trial court relied on the testimony of four eye‑witnesses who identified the accused under street‑light and shop‑light illumination, and the FIR w

RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ AND ANR.versusKANWAR PAL SINGH GILL AND ANR.

1995 INSC 61612 October 1995Disposed off

Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an IAS officer, complained that the Director General of Police, K.P.S. Gill, had assaulted her modesty at a dinner party by pulling her chair, standing too close, ordering her to move, and finally slapping her posterior in front of many guests. She lodged a FIR alleging offences under IPC section

BAKHSHISH SINGH BRARversusSMT. GURMEJ KAUR AND ANR.

1987 INSC 27912 October 1987Dismissed

The petitioner, a police officer, was charged with several offences including murder and grievous hurt arising from a raid. He argued that under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code the court could not take cognizance or proceed with trial without a sanction under Section 197, which protects public servants actin

MAMMAN KHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 111312 September 2025Disposed off

Mamman Khan, a sitting MLA, was charged in two FIRs relating to large‑scale communal violence in Nuh district. The trial court, citing the need for speedy disposal of cases involving legislators, ordered a separate charge‑sheet and segregated his trial from the co‑accused, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The app

ITC LIMITEDversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2025 INSC 111112 September 2025Disposed off

The appellant, ITC Limited, a manufacturer of stationery, stored 7,600 pre‑packed exercise books in a warehouse in Bengaluru. On 2 July 2020, Respondent No.2, a legal metrology officer, entered the premises under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, inspected and seized the packages alleging non‑compliance with

ANNA WAMAN BHALERAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 111412 September 2025Dismissed

The appellants, a former Circle Officer and Talathi, were accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents that facilitated an illegal property transfer between 1996 and 1998. An FIR was lodged in 2019 and the appellants filed anticipatory bail applications, which received intermittent interim protectio

RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 72012 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rabbu @ Sarvesh, was convicted of rape, murder and related offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, 302 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 POCSO, receiving the death penalty for Sections 376A and 302. The defence argued that the three dying declarations were inconsistent and that DNA evidence suggested a

MOHAMMAD LATIEF MAGREYversusTHE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

2022 INSC 94712 September 2022Dismissed

In an encounter on 15.11.2021, the appellant's son was killed and buried by the authorities. The appellant sought exhumation of the body to perform Islamic last rites, and a single judge of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court ordered disinterment. The Union Territory appealed, and the High Court modified the order, allowing

VINOD KATARAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 94912 September 2022Directions issued

Vinod Katara, convicted to life imprisonment for murder in 1982, later claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence based on a medical board report and a Family Register showing a birth year of 1968. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Prot

DARBARA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2012 INSC 38912 September 2012Dismissed

The appellant Darbara Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering Mukhtiar Singh, based on eye‑witness testimony that he struck the victim's head with a kirpan while the victim was attempting to run. The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, including alleged inconsistency between medical

KUNAL MAJUMDARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 39112 September 2012Disposed off

The appellant Kunal Majumdar was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and rape of a minor (Secs. 376, 511 IPC), receiving a death sentence for murder and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for rape. The conviction and death sentence were referred to the High Court under Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC

JAKIA NASIM AHESAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2011 INSC 67112 September 2011Disposed off

The appellant, whose husband was killed in the 2002 Gulberg Society riots, filed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC seeking registration of a private complaint as an FIR and investigation by an independent agency. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the appellant to use the remedies und

GURPREET SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2002 INSC 38212 September 2002Dismissed

Gurpreet Singh, an ex‑Air Force officer, was charged with murdering his wife Kalpna by setting her on fire. There was no eye‑witness; the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including a strained marital relationship, a pending divorce with a monetary settlement, prior instances of domestic violence, the appel

K.G. PREMSHANKERversusINSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.

2002 INSC 38112 September 2002Dismissed

The appellant, K.G. Premshanker, sought to quash criminal prosecution on the ground that a civil suit for damages against him had been dismissed, and he argued that the civil judgment should prevail over the criminal case. The High Court rejected this plea and the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court examined th

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 56012 September 1995Dismissed

The appellant, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., was the manufacturer of vanaspati ghee that was found adulterated when sold by Laxmi Narain, who was prosecuted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During the trial, the magistrate, on the basis of evidence that the appellant had manu

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.versusLAISAL HAQUE & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 26912 September 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent riot in which Laisal Haque and others entered an oil mill, opened fire and caused the death of Gulam Rabbani and injuries to several others. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted sixteen of the forty‑two accused under sections 148, 302 and 324 of the IPC, while acquitting the remaining t

DR. BALIRAM WAMAN HIRAYversusJUSTICE B. LENTIN AND OTHERS

1988 INSC 27212 September 1988Case Allowed

The State of Maharashtra appointed Justice B. Lentin as a one‑man Commission of Inquiry to investigate the death of 14 patients at J.J. Hospital. The Commission found the appellant, Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray, gave contradictory evidence and issued a show‑cause notice for perjury under s.193 IPC read with s.340 CrPC, dire

MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 60012 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.500 and was caught in a trap operation organized by the Lokayukta. He was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting public servants during the trap, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Supreme Cou

MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARIversusAMIT KUMAR TIWARI & ANR.

2022 INSC 131712 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a 17‑year‑old girl who delivered a baby and then committed suicide filed an FIR alleging rape under IPC s.376 and the POCSO Act against Amit Kumar Tiwari. The Special Judge framed charges, but the accused obtained a criminal revision under CrPC s.397/401 and the High Court discharged him on the basis of a

SHAMBHU KHARWARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 82712 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shambhu Kharwar, was accused by a woman (the second respondent) of raping her under Section 376 of the IPC, alleging that he had promised to marry her and then broke that promise, leading her to file a complaint. The woman had been in a consensual relationship with the appellant from 2013 to 2017, marrie

KALA @ CHANDRAKALAversusSTATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2016 INSC 59312 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kala (Chandrakala), was convicted along with her father for the murder of her husband Murugesan, alleged to have been strangled with a saree and his body disposed under a canal bridge. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, an extra‑judicial confession made by the appellant to the dece

ANITA THAKUR & ORS.versusGOVT. OF J & K & ORS.

2016 INSC 59712 August 2016Disposed off

The petitioners, migrants from Jammu & Kashmir, organized a peaceful march to Delhi to press for relief measures, but were stopped near Katra where police used lathi charge and tear‑gas, beating the petitioners even after the crowd was dispersed. The petitioners claimed violations of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the C

STATE OF PUNJABversusMADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA

2013 INSC 53012 August 2013Dismissed

The respondent, an Income Tax Inspector, was alleged to have demanded Rs.25,000 as illegal gratification to refrain from reopening a tax assessment. A trap was laid using chemically treated currency notes that turned pink on the respondent's hands, leading to his conviction by the trial court under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)

RAM MEHAR SINGHversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.

2011 INSC 57712 August 2011Disposed off

The case arose from a dispute over immovable property in which the police, invoking Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), detained the writ petitioners for a day. The petitioners filed writ petitions alleging illegal detention and violation of their fundamental rights; the Delhi High Court quas

RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS.versusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

2011 INSC 57812 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition in which two police constables and a head constable were accused of illegal detention after they booked two intoxicated individuals under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. and sent them to judicial custody for failing to furnish bail bonds. The Delhi High Court had quashed t

KISHAN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.versusGURPAL SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 50912 August 2010Disposed off

The dispute arose from two agreements to sell the same parcel of land, leading to parallel civil suits for specific performance. The appellant's father, after losing the civil suit, filed an FIR alleging forgery of the earlier agreement and the respondents obtained a quashing order from the High Court, which relied on

AMIT KUMAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2010 INSC 50412 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants Amit Kumar and Brij Bhushan were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of Anita Rani, who was set on fire allegedly over dowry demands. The prosecution relied on the victim's dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, corroborated by eyewitnesses who saw the fire and ide

RESERVE BANK OF INDIAversusGM, COOPE. BANK DEPOSIT AJC HR. SHA & ORS.

2010 INSC 50512 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Reserve Bank of India appealed against two orders of the Gujarat High Court that, in a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC, directed a cooperative bank to repay deposits of poor depositors (those with balances up to Rs 10,000) from funds recovered from accused persons. The bail had been granted to the ex

S.S. CHHEENAversusVIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 50612 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S.S. Chheena, a university security officer, was charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of a student, Saurav Mahajan, who had taken his life after a dispute over a stolen mobile phone. The suicide note recovered from the deceased blamed fellow students but m

M.A.A. ANNAMALAIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 50712 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former director of R.P.S. Benefit Fund Ltd., filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The FIR alleged cheating by the company for failing

VASUDEVversusPARVINDER KUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 92812 August 2008Disposed off

The appellant, Vasudev, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 91 of the CrPC alleging that the father of respondents forged the mother’s signature to withdraw money from her bank account, leading to FIR No.61 dated 13‑03‑2002. The trial court disposed of the application with directions, and a subsequ

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusAHMED JAAN

2008 INSC 92912 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi filed a criminal revision petition against the discharge of Ahmed Jaan, who was charged with offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 124A and 120B of the IPC for alleged terrorist activities. The trial court discharged him for lack of prima facie evidence. The State’s revision petition and an

RAVIversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2004 INSC 44112 August 2004Dismissed

Six accused, including A‑1 Ravi, formed an unlawful assembly armed with knives and sticks and, driven by a grievance over the death of a sister, entered the house of the victim Shanmugam, assaulted him and caused injuries that led to his death. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses (the victim's mother, PW2, and othe

STATE OF ORRISAversusNALINIKANTA MUDULI

2004 INSC 44312 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Orissa appealed against a single judge of the Orissa High Court who had quashed three petitions filed by the accused, Nalinikanta Muduli, under Section 482 of the CrPC, relying on the Patna High Court decision J.A.C. Saldanha (1979). The State contended that the cited decision had been overruled by the Sup

TARUN BORA @ ALOKA HAZARIKAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2002 INSC 32912 August 2002

The appellant, Tarun Bora (alias Aloka Hazarika), was convicted under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and under Sections 3(1) and 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for alleged terrorist conduct. The offence occurred on 18 August 1991, whereas Section 3(5) of TAD

I.C.D.S LTD.versusBEENA SHABEER AND ANR.

2002 INSC 33112 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The husband entered into a hire‑purchase agreement with I.C.D.S. Ltd., and his wife stood as guarantor, issuing a cheque for part payment. The cheque was returned unpaid and the appellant served a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereafter filing a criminal complaint. The res

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM BHAROSI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 30312 August 1998Case Allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment that acquitted five accused of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) on the ground of private defence and convicted them only under lesser offences. The incident involved a dispute over agricultural land where the accused were found ploughing the complainant’s field;

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