Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5,133 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 3,401–3,600.

PAUL VARGHESEversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 40510 April 2007Disposed off

The case concerned the prosecution of three accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanctioning authority approved prosecution of only one accused, but the trial court later impleaded the other two under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that this provision overrides Section

LOK RAMversusNIHAL SINGH AND ANR

2006 INSC 21810 April 2006Dismissed

The appellant Lok Ram was not originally named as an accused in a dowry‑death case in which his sons were convicted. The complainant applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon Lok Ram as an accused; the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the complainant was an interested

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I. AND ORS.versusTAPAN KR. SINGH

2003 INSC 22610 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI received a reliable tip that Tapan Kumar Singh, a senior official, had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs 1 lakh as illegal gratification and was carrying the cash on a train. A General Diary (G.D.) entry recorded this information, after which the police intercepted Singh, searched him, his belongings and his re

CAMILO VAZversusSTATE OF GOA

2000 INSC 20610 April 2000Case Partly allowed

Camilo Vaz was part of a gang of seventeen accused tried for the murder of Sub‑Inspector Simon Fernandez and the attempted murder of his brothers during a violent clash between rival village groups. The Sessions Court convicted five, including Vaz, of murder under Section 302 read with Sections 120‑B and 149 IPC and se

RAM NATH MAHTOversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 50310 April 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Ram Nath Mahato, was alleged to have participated in a night robbery on a train, during which a passenger was killed and others injured. A witness (PW 6) identified Mahato in a test identification parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate PW 7, but at trial PW 6 refused to recognize him, claiming fear. The

MULAKH RAJ ETC.versusSATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

1992 INSC 10610 April 1992Case Partly allowed

The case concerned the death of Shashi Bala, wife of Satish Kumar, who was alleged to have been strangled and her body burnt to destroy evidence. The trial court convicted Kumar under Sections 302 and 201 IPC based on the post‑mortem report, medical testimony and circumstantial evidence, while acquitting his relatives.

GANESHLALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1992 INSC 10710 April 1992Dismissed

The appellant Ganeshlal was charged, along with his parents, sister, maternal uncle and the uncle's daughter, for the murder of his wife Kanchana, whose body was found severely burnt on the third floor of their house. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) convicted Ganeshlal al

MALKIAT SINGH AND ORSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1991 INSC 9810 April 1991Case Partly allowed

The case concerned the murder of four liquor‑shop workers and the attempted murder of a fifth person. The prosecution relied mainly on the ocular testimony of two injured witnesses (PW‑3 and PW‑4), ballistic evidence linking a rifle owned by the accused A‑1, and circumstantial evidence. The appellants challenged the ad

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANRversusRAM DIYA

1990 INSC 13310 April 1990Dismissed

The State of Haryana appealed against High Court orders directing it to consider premature release of two convicts whose death sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment. The convicts were sentenced before the 1978 amendment introducing Section 433A of the CrPC, which mandates a minimum of 14 years’ actual impris

POORANMALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2026 INSC 21710 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Pooranmal was convicted along with co‑accused Ladu Lal for the murder of Ladu Lal’s wife, Aruna, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case against Pooranmal rested solely on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: call detail records showing frequent communication with Ladu Lal, a

PURAN MALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2022 INSC 29710 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the State of Haryana, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Mahesh Kumar, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons despite two prior bail rejections by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing bail

PRITI SARAF & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2021 INSC 17710 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a criminal complaint alleging that the second respondent, a property owner, cheated them in a commercial transaction involving the sale of a mortgaged plot, breaching the agreement and misappropriating funds, leading to FIRs under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC. The Delhi High Court, invoking its inh

GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 18910 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Jagsir Singh on 17 October 1998. The prosecution alleged that Gurjit Singh alias Gora and Surjit Singh alias Sukha, armed with spades (kassi), struck the victim on the head and face after being urged by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Surjit Kaur, to teach the victim a lesson. The accu

MD.ALL @ GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 19010 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants were convicted by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court for kidnapping and rape under IPC sections 363, 366 and 376 based largely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother. The FIR was lodged eleven days after the alleged kidnapping, and the mother failed to file a missing report, raising

V.C. CHINNAPPA GOUDARversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2015 INSC 96810 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants, who were public servants, were prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. They contended that, as public servants, prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was not obtained. The Supreme Court examine

POOJA BHATIAversusVISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.

2014 INSC 17910 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Vishnu Narayan Shivpuri was charged under IPC sections 342, 326‑8 and 506 for allegedly throwing sulphuric acid on his wife, Pooja Bhatia. The Sessions Court denied his bail, but the High Court later released him on bail. After his release, the Superintendent of Police submitted a counter‑affidavit stating that Shivpur

SHEIKH MEHEBOOB @ HETAK AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2005 INSC 12710 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for allegedly setting a 20‑year‑old victim on fire. The prosecution’s case rested on the victim’s dying declaration and the testimony of the victim’s father (PW‑2). The Supreme Court found that the father’s written report to police was suppressed, that his eyewit

SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2005 INSC 12810 March 2005Disposed off

Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, asserting that she was married to the respondent under customary rites while he already had a living wife. The trial court and High Court had granted her maintenance and that for the child, but the High Court held that she was not a legal wif

CHARAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2004 INSC 15310 March 2004Disposed off

The case arose from a violent clash over a disputed passage construction in Uttar Pradesh, resulting in three deaths and several injuries. Twenty‑four persons were charged; the trial court convicted seven under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, while the High Court affirmed those convictions, acquitted fi

DHANAJ SINGH @ SHERA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2004 INSC 15410 March 2004Dismissed

The appellants, Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others, were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They contended that the police investigation was defective – forensic samples were not sent for chemical or ballistic analysis and several potential witnesses were not examined – and that the ey

STATE OF HARYANAversusNAURATTA SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 13510 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Nauratta Singh was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. While his appeal was pending, he remained on bail for several years. He claimed that the period spent on bail should be counted towards remission under the Haryana Government's instructions granting remission to convicts on parole or furlough. T

SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusINDIA SECURITIES LTD.

1999 INSC 9510 March 1999Dismissed

The appellants issued cheques that bounced, and the respondent served a notice demanding payment on 29 September 1995. Under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellants had 15 days to pay, which expired on 14 October 1995, giving rise to a cause of action on 15 October 1995. The respondent filed a

SHEIKH ISHAQUE AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1995 INSC 18310 March 1995Dismissed

In July 1990 a bomb attack and arson resulted in the death of three members of the Bhagat family. Four accused were convicted of murder under IPC sections 302/34 and sentenced to death, while seven co‑accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the death sentences and acquitted the seven co‑accus

KUMAR PADMA PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 6910 March 1992Case Allowed

The petition challenged the appointment of K.N. Srivastava as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court on the ground that he did not satisfy the qualifications under Article 217(2) of the Constitution. The Court examined the meaning of "judicial office" and held that it must be an office within the judicial service defined by

KHATRI & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1981 INSC 6110 March 1981

The petitioners, undertrials, alleged that police blinded them while in custody and sought compensation under Article 21. They requested CID reports and related documents, which the State refused to produce citing protection under Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the repo

NIRANJAN SINGH & ANR.versusPRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE & ORS.

1980 INSC 4410 March 1980Disposed off

The petitioner, a complainant, alleged that police officers abducted and murdered his brother. A private complaint led to an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., after which non‑bailable warrants were issued. The accused police applied for bail; the Sessions Court granted bail with conditions, and the High Court added fu

DR. ANAND RAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2026 INSC 14110 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, Dr. Anand Rai, was charged under several IPC provisions and the SC/ST Act for allegedly taking part in a stone‑throwing scuffle at a public event. He sought discharge under s.227 CrPC, arguing that the SC/ST charges lacked essential ingredients such as the victim’s caste status and his knowledge of it. The

VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The deceased Geetha was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted both the husband (appellant No.1) and the mother‑in‑law (appellant No.2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court reversed th

NAUSHEY ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 18210 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, residents of Barwara Khas village, were charged in 1991 with offences including Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting Mahmood with lathis and iron bars, leading to a fracture of his finger. After a police closure report deeming the complaint false, the trial court summoned the appellants, and the cas

M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANRversusP. BALASUBRAMANIAN

2021 INSC 7210 February 2021Dismissed

M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr and its managing partner B. Subramanian issued a cheque of Rs 11.20 lakhs to P. Balasubramanian, which was later dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed; the trial court acquitted the appellants, but the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal, con

RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.

2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I

PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHANversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2020 INSC 15710 February 2020Disposed off

The petitioners challenged Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which removed the requirement of a preliminary inquiry and the need for approval before arrest, and barred anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the directions issued

ARUN SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER

2020 INSC 16310 February 2020Disposed off

The appellants were charged under Section 493 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly demanding dowry and for deceitful cohabitation. The complainant filed an FIR after a purported compromise between the parties, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 482

HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 15310 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hamant Yashwant Dhage, filed a complaint and sought registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence. The Judicial Magistrate refused to register the FIR, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court via a writ petition, which also declined to direct registration. The Supreme Court, recalling its ea

SHARAD KUMAR SANGHIversusSANGITA RANE

2015 INSC 96110 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, Managing Director of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating a buyer by delivering a vehicle with a replaced engine after an accident. The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, primarily alleged wrongdoing by the company but d

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTDversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS

2015 INSC 10310 February 2015Case Allowed

The case concerned a criminal prosecution of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for allegedly failing to implement the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board constituted under the Working Journalists Act. The High Court had held the complaint maintainable;

DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTAversusC.B.I. AND ANR.

2012 INSC 8510 February 2012Disposed off

The appellant, a joint managing director of a large export company, was arrested in 2010 on several economic offences alleged by multiple banks and the CBI. After a prolonged period of custody, intermittent interim bail on medical grounds, and the filing of charge sheets without framing of charges, the High Court rejec

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

2011 INSC 11610 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the award of a hydro‑electric project contract by the Kerala State Electricity Board to K.P. Poulose at rates far above the probable amount, allegedly facilitated by Minister R. Balakrishna Pillai, a Board member and a close associate. The prosecution proved that the Minister, the Board member and an

SHAKUNT ALA DEVI & ORS.versusCHAMRU MAHTO & ANR.

2009 INSC 13810 February 2009Dismissed

The appellants sought restoration of possession of land under Section 145(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code after an Executive Magistrate had declared their right to possession in 1994. The respondent obtained a revision and the High Court set aside the lower courts' orders, invoking the Specific Relief Act and the Lim

SASHI JENA AND ORS.versusKHADAL SWAIN AND ANR.

2004 INSC 9510 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that the appellants demanded additional dowry, tortured the victim and caused her death. A magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, during which an eye‑witness (PW 1) gave a statement that was later recorded. At trial PW 1 was declared hostile and the

K. CH. PRASADversusSMT. J.VANALATHA DEVI AND ORS.

1987 INSC 4010 February 1987Dismissed

A complaint was filed against K. Ch. Prasad, an officer of a nationalised bank, under IPC sections 120(b), 467 and 471. The appellant objected that the prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction under CrPC section 197, arguing that he was a public servant whose removal required government sanction. The Metrop

JAWAHAR LAL SINGHversusNARESH SINGH & ORS.

1987 INSC 4110 February 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Twenty‑five accused were tried for dacoity and murder under Section 396 of the IPC. Eye‑witnesses claimed to have identified the accused in lantern light, and the prosecution evidence was attributed to different accused. The Sessions Judge discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted all accused. The State of Bihar

JAYABENversusTEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR

2022 INSC 2810 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Mukeshbhai, the husband of complainant Jayaben, who was brutally beaten and tied to a gate by five accused persons. The accused were identified in a Test Identification Parade, and the incident was captured on CCTV and a mobile phone. The High Court had released the principal accused, Te

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3110 January 2020Disposed off

The Court examined the Jammu and Kashmir government's orders that shut down mobile, landline, and internet services and imposed Section 144 restrictions on 4‑8‑2019, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights to free speech, press, and trade. The petitioners sought production of all orders, a decla

SALONI ARORAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2017 INSC 4310 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for making a false complaint to a public servant. The prosecution failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a written complaint by the public servant before a prosecution can be lau

STATE OF GUJARATversusRATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAL ANOPSINH CHAUHAN

2014 INSC 2010 January 2014Dismissed

The State of Gujarat charged Ratansingh under sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC for the alleged rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl. The trial court convicted him, awarding a death sentence for murder and life imprisonment for rape. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution’s

HARDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 2110 January 2014

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a court to proceed against persons not originally accused if evidence shows their involvement. It held that the power can be exercised at any time after the charge‑sheet is filed and before judgment, provided the

CHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF AP. REP. BY HOME SECRETARY

2013 INSC 2810 January 2013Dismissed

The appellants were accused of murdering a man and injuring another after a prior confrontation. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, imposing life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's

ARUN BHANDARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 2910 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Arun Bhandari, an NRI, paid Rs.1.05 crore as part payment for a plot in Greater Noida on the basis of an agreement with respondents Savita Singh and Raghuvinder Singh, who later transferred the property to a third party. When the property was not delivered, Bhandari filed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of

BIJA & ORSversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 3410 January 2008Case Partly allowed

The deceased Santro, after a forced second marriage (Karewa) arranged by the village Panchayat, was found dead in her in-laws' house. Medical evidence established that she died from asphyxia due to smothering, not from epilepsy or electrocution as the defence claimed. The trial court and High Court convicted all four a

PURAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2008 INSC 3510 January 2008Case Allowed

Puran Singh was charged with murdering his brother Rajpal Singh by firing a licensed 12‑bore gun. The trial court acquitted him, citing benefit of doubt, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted him under IPC s.302. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a new plea that the cartridge which

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBACCHUDAS@ BALARAM AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2510 January 2007Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order acquitting Bacchudas and others, who had been convicted by a trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II read with Section 34. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's widow (PW‑1), his son (PW‑2) and a

JAYENDRA SARASWATHI SWAMIGALversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2005 INSC 1710 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, was arrested on charges of conspiring to murder Sankararaman, an administrative manager. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had lodged complaints against the petitioner and that the petitioner offered Rs 50 lakhs to hired men to kill

SURESH CHAND JAINversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2001 INSC 1910 January 2001Dismissed

The appellant was named in a private complaint alleging offences under the Prizes, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Prohibition) Act and IPC 420. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, without examining the complainant on oath, ordered the police to register an FIR and investigate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The appel

ROSY AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 1210 January 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Excise Inspector filed a complaint under the Kerala Abkari Act before a Judicial Magistrate, who, without examining any of the ten listed witnesses, committed the case to the Sessions Court because the offences were exclusively triable there. The accused later raised, during arguments, an objection that the magistr

SURENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 14129 December 2025Dismissed

Surender Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased with four knife blows to vital parts, causing fatal injuries. The appellant argued that the incident fell under one of the four exceptions to Section 300 IPC, seeking a conviction for a lesser offence. The Supreme Court examin

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.

2024 INSC 9479 December 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the case of two convicts sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a woman, focusing on the inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the death sentence. The convicts filed mercy petitions with the Governor of Maharashtra and the President of India, which were rejected after prolonged

M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 8549 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed a criminal complaint against a private respondent (original accused No.1) and others for offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of the IPC. A charge‑sheet was filed only against accused No.1 after a thorough investigation. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings on

GULABversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 8529 December 2021Dismissed

Gulab was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly exhorting his co‑accused Idrish to shoot the deceased. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, all relatives of the victim, who consistently testified that Gulab arrived with a lathi, urged Idrish to kill, and that Idris

BHAGCHANDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 8519 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant Bhagchandra was convicted of murdering his two brothers and a nephew during a property dispute, with the prosecution relying on the ocular testimony of several rustic village witnesses who identified him as the assailant wielding an axe. The trial court sentenced him to death under IPC sections 302, 201 a

THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBIversusUTTAMCHAND BOHRA

2021 INSC 8559 December 2021Dismissed

The CBI alleged that Uttamchand Bohra aided a senior income‑tax officer (A‑1) in acquiring a flat through a company, thereby helping the officer amass assets disproportionate to his known income. The prosecution’s case rested on Bohra’s custody of the sale deed and the fact that his employee witnessed its execution, al

MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2016 INSC 11189 December 2016Disposed off

On 10 February 1994, a group of accused assembled unlawfully in Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, and attacked the family of the deceased Rajendran, killing eight persons including a one‑year‑old child. The trial court convicted the accused under various provisions of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for each

HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2016 INSC 11199 December 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by HDFC Securities Ltd. and its officers challenging the registration of an FIR and a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing police investigation into alleged unauthorized trades. The appellants argued that the order caused irreparable injury and should be q

SELVARAJ @ CHINNAPAIYANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2014 INSC 8469 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Selvaraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly strangling his infant daughter, based on testimony of the mother, mother‑in‑law and a sister, who later turned hostile, and on a medical report that did not conclusively indicate homicide. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the hostile

K.K. SINGHAL & ORS.versusSTEEL STRIPS LTD.

2014 INSC 8459 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants K.K. Singhal & Ors. issued 33 cheques that were dishonoured, leading the respondent Steel Strips Ltd. to file 26 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties later entered into a settlement at Chandigarh, where the respondent agreed to withdraw the complaints in exchange fo

KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

2014 INSC 8499 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Ranjit Singh, allegedly attacked with lathis and tabbal by the accused amid a land dispute. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal, whose testimonies were corroborated and supported by a post‑mortem report esta

STATE OF M.P.versusRAM MANOHAR PANDEY

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 2689 December 2014Dismissed

Ram Manohar Pandey, a civil engineer on deputation, was charged with corruption offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the Municipal Corporation of Ujjain and the State Government refused to grant sanction for his prosecution while he was in service, yet a charge‑shee

UMA SHANKAR GAUTAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 8479 December 2014Dismissed

The appellant, accused No.1, was convicted along with five others for offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of the IPC for the murder of Kalua. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and two others, but acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6 on the ground that no lathi injuries were found on the deceased and t

MARY PAPPA JEBAMANIversusGANESAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 8119 December 2013Disposed off

Mary Pappa Jebamani filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and verbal abuse under IPC sections 294(b) and 323. The summary trial court acquitted the accused because two key eyewitnesses turned hostile and the trial court found the evidence insufficient. The Sessions Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNISHANT SAREEN

2010 INSC 8649 December 2010Dismissed

Nishant Sareen, a Drug Inspector, was caught accepting a bribe and the Vigilance Department sought sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Principal Secretary (Health) first refused sanction, deeming the case frivolous, but later reversed the decision and granted sancti

PANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 12949 December 2009Dismissed

The appellants Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla and Channey @ Prabhu Narain Shukla were convicted for the murder of Shivdhari, who was killed by a bomb, a pistol shot and a neck cut during a land‑dispute. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the High Court and upheld on appeal. In the Supreme Co

STATE OF H.P.versusM.P. GUPTA

2003 INSC 6979 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order quashing charges against M.P. Gupta, a former Chief Conservator of Forests, on the ground that the prosecution lacked the sanction required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused had been charged with offences

SANJA Y SURI & ANR.versusDELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI & ANR.

1987 INSC 3679 December 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained public‑interest writ petitions filed by a news editor and a trainee sub‑editor concerning mal‑administration in Tihar Central Jail, especially the treatment of juvenile under‑trials. The Court, after ordering a District Judge’s inquiry, found that juveniles were being housed with adult pri

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 9919 November 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking the expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The petition also raised the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1

SAJEEVversusSTATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 9989 November 2023Dismissed

The case concerned the conviction of two accused, Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11), for their role in a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit and sell it as illicit liquor, which caused seven deaths, eleven cases of blindness and injuries to over forty persons. The trial court and Kerala High Court convicted them unde

MADANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2023 INSC 9909 November 2023Disposed off

The case arose from a 2003 incident in Muzzafarnagar where six persons were killed by indiscriminate firing by the appellants Madan, Sudesh Pal and others, allegedly motivated by political rivalry. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced Madan and Sudesh Pa

MAHAVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2016 INSC 10149 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned Mahavir Singh, who was convicted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for murder under Section 302 IPC, overturning an acquittal by the trial court. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of several eyewitnesses, the seizure of a gun and cartridges from the accused, and alleged enmity between

SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2012 INSC 5159 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants, the husband and his parents‑in‑law, were charged under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment and a specific incident of abandonment. They sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, claiming the allegations were false. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 239 and the standard for

C.K. JAFFER SHARIEFversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI)

2012 INSC 5179 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

C.K. Jaffer Sharief, then Union Railway Minister, was accused of having the Managing Directors of RITES and IRCON approve the travel of four persons to London for his medical treatment, allegedly causing pecuniary loss to the PSUs. The FIR alleged that the journeys were arranged without any public interest and that the

SHANTIBHAI J. VAGHELA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5189 November 2012Dismissed

Two minor children residing in a Gurukul (ashram) went missing and were later found dead in the Sabarmati river. An FIR was lodged against seven ash​ram inmates under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and other offences. The High Court quashed the FIR in

MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off

Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced

SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2006 INSC 8119 November 2006Disposed off

The appellants were charged in an FIR for alleged misappropriation of stock, which they claimed was essentially a civil dispute under arbitration. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim protection under Section 438 of the CrPC, conditioning it on the deposit of Rs 10 lakh with the complainant. The appellants

STATE OF KERALAversusKURISSUM MOOTTIL ANTONY

2006 INSC 8129 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala appealed the Kerala High Court’s acquittal of Kurissum Moottil Antony, who had been convicted under Sections 377 and 451 IPC for committing an unnatural offence on a ten‑year‑old girl. The High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the victim’s testimony was not corroborated and that a r

GURPREET SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2005 INSC 5579 November 2005

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Kuljit Singh, where the accused Gurpreet Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh, along with others, were convicted under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to kill, supported by eyewitness testimony and medical eviden

BALWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 7049 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Balwinder Singh was convicted by a Special Court under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the murder of his daughter Rozy, based solely on circumstantial evidence comprising alleged "last seen together" testimony, an extra‑judicial confession, recovery of a dead body, and a disclosure statement leading to the recovery

NISAR AND ANRversusSTATE OF U.P

1994 INSC 5079 November 1994Dismissed

The deceased met an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, leading to an FIR that named her husband, mother‑in‑law and two relatives (the brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law) as alleged perpetrators. The police charge‑sheeted only the husband and mother‑in‑law under IPC sections 304B and 306, and the case was committed

SANKAR PADAM THAPAversusVIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

2025 INSC 12109 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liaison for a private university, was issued a cheque of Rs.5 crore by the respondent, who was the Chairman and authorized signatory of Orion Education Trust, but the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

CHANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P

2023 INSC 8879 October 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted by the High Court of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The conviction under Section 302/34 was based on the appellate court’s alteration of the original charge (Section 302 with Sections 148

RAJESH JAINversusAJAY SINGH

2023 INSC 8889 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Rajesh Jain alleged that he had advanced loans to Ajay Singh, who later issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Jain filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the trial court acquitted Singh and the High Court upheld the acquittal. The Sup

STATE OF GUJARATversusDILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO

2023 INSC 8949 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat prosecuted Sub‑Inspector Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Rao filed an application for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, contending that the investigating officer had ignored his written

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 10859 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha, convicted under IPC 376(2)(g) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) together with an application for exemption from surrender. The Chamber Judge rejected the exemption, gave them six weeks to surrender and later two weeks to file surrende

RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAINversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 10199 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a settlement recorded on a bond paper of Rs.100 filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. The accused, Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain, was alleged to have taken the bond paper from the court file on 16 July 2010, leading to an FIR and his conviction under Section 379 IPC by the trial court. On appeal

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusBRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.

2017 INSC 10189 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the discharge of Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and others by a Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The key dispute was whether charge‑sheets filed in courts outside Delhi could be counted towards the "continuing unlawful activity" requireme

RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERSversusM/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7629 October 2015Disposed off

The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion (No.3616 of 2010) in the Bombay High Court seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit. The Single Judge declined to grant any ad‑interim order, directing the parties to file affidavits and setting a hearing date. The petitioners appealed, but the Division Bench upheld

MOFIL KHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2014 INSC 10169 October 2014Dismissed

Mofil Khan and two co‑accused brutally murdered eight members of their own family, including women, children and a physically disabled boy, to obtain property. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the "rarest of rare" doc

INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 10169 October 2007Disposed off

The Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha cancelled a General Power of Attorney and sold a portion of its land after the contractor, Himmat Rai Ahuja, allegedly failed to pay the balance price. The contractor filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC, l

THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKOTTAI, TAMILNADUversusA. PARTHIBAN

2006 INSC 6859 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

A. Parthiban, a public servant, was convicted for demanding and receiving illegal gratification, an act that attracted charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 and one year’s

PASHORA SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1992 INSC 2719 October 1992Case Partly allowed

Pashora Singh and his brother Lahora Singh were tried for offences under Sections 307, 447, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for inflicting injuries on Amar Singh and Pal Singh in 1981. The trial court convicted them of the latter four offences and, as they were not previous convicts, gran

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusC. BERNARD

1990 INSC 3049 October 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bank of India charged its employee C. Bernard with claiming a loss‑adjustment facility using forged travel receipts. The Bank appointed Shri U.B. Menon as Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority, but Menon retired during the enquiry and continued to conduct it, ultimately ordering Bernard's discharge. Th

SAVITRI W/O SHRI GOVIND SINGH RAWATversusSHRI GOVIND SINGH RAWAT

1985 INSC 2279 October 1985Disposed off

The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from her husband, and subsequently applied for an interim maintenance order pending the final disposal of the main application. The Metropolitan Magistrate refused the interim order, stating that the Code

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 6689 September 2024Dismissed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requiring the appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, to appear in Delhi and produce documents related to a coal theft and money‑laundering investigation. The appellants challenged the s

DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.

2024 INSC 6699 September 2024Dismissed

The respondent, already in judicial custody for ECIR No.10 of 2021, feared arrest in a separate case (CR No.806 of 2019) and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The complainant objected, arguing that a person already in custody cannot seek anticipatory bail for another offence. The Bombay High

RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 6689 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, a practising advocate, was charged under IPC s.324. After failing to appear on 7 August 2002, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued a non‑bailable warrant (NBW) returnable on 31 October 2002. The appellant appeared on 12 August and the warrant was cancelled, but on 15 August the police insp

UMA SHANKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 5919 September 2010Dismissed

During a Bihar assembly election, an FIR was lodged for murder, robbery and illegal possession of arms, implicating Uma Shankar Singh. The investigation was transferred to the CID and both the CID and local police submitted final reports under Section 173(2) CrPC that exonerated Singh. Despite these reports, the Chief

DHARAMPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2010 INSC 5939 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh, were arrested when police searched a car they were occupying and recovered 65 kg of opium from the vehicle's dicky. They were charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The trial court acquitted them, holding that Section 50 of

STATE OF U.P.versusAWDHESH

2008 INSC 10249 September 2008Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of Awdhesh, who had been convicted for dacoity under Section 396 IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of a direc

HEMRAJ AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2003 INSC 4599 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Hemraj, Gian Chand and Baldev Raj were acquitted by the trial court of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) read with Sec. 34 IPC, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them. They appealed to the Supreme Court under Sec. 379 CrPC and Sec. 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Cr

ASHISH BATHAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2002 INSC 3699 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murdering two sisters and committing house trespass under Sections 302 and 449 IPC based largely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive, sightings, and recovered items. He appealed, contending that the prosecution had not proved a continuous chain of circumstances, had suppr

MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 5959 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, was arrested in 2023 in connection with CBI and ED investigations into alleged irregularities in Delhi’s excise policy. He remained in custody for about 17 months without trial, and his multiple bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the Delhi

M/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 5859 August 2016Dismissed

The case concerned HCL Infosystem Ltd., a co‑accused in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam, where the sole public servant co‑accused had died before any charge was framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether the Special Judge appointed under s.3(1) of the PC Act could

PHOOL KUMARIversusOFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

2012 INSC 3319 August 2012Disposed off

Phool Kumari was convicted under IPC sections 323, 342, 307 and 34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, later reduced to five years. While incarcerated in Tihar Central Jail she was assigned work as a Sewadar in the Medical Inspection room. She claimed wages for the work done, but the prison superintendent and a vis

PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHIversusPYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR.

2011 INSC 5649 August 2011Case Allowed

The appellant, Pyla Mutyalamma, filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application for maintenance against her husband, alleging a valid marriage in 1974 and desertion after 25 years. The trial magistrate found her to be the lawful wife with two surviving children and awarded Rs.500 per month. The husband appealed, claiming a pri

LAKHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 4899 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Lakhan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning his wife, Savita. Two dying declarations were recorded: the first by an Executive Magistrate stating the death was accidental, and the second by a police ASI accusing the appellant of pouring kerosene and setting her alight. The trial and

ATBIRversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2010 INSC 4919 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants Atbir and Ashok were convicted for the murder of three members of their step‑mother's family, based solely on the dying declaration of the surviving victim, Sonu (Savita), recorded by a police officer in the presence of a doctor. The Supreme Court held that the declaration was reliable, made in a fit sta

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusSURJA RAM

1995 INSC 4489 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Surja Ram and his son Mohan Lal for the murders of Tulsa Ram and his son Brij Lal, arising from a family partition dispute over crop shares. The trial court convicted the two accused of the murder of Tulsa Ram under s.302 read with s.34 IPC, relying on the eye‑witness testimony of Kamla D

MADHU MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA

1989 INSC 2359 August 1989Disposed off

The petition under Article 32 sought relief for Gyasi Ram, a death‑row inmate whose mercy petitions had remained pending for about eight years due to administrative delays, including the pending petition of his accomplice Daya Ram. The Supreme Court examined whether such inordinate delay in executing a death sentence v

GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2024 INSC 4889 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a minor for ransom, robbery and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 364A, 392 and 120B. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of the victim and his father, but the victim's family never reported the incident to police and the key witness, the grandfather, was ne

VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4909 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the conviction of two police officers for the death of Jeeva, who allegedly died from custodial torture at Amraiwadi police station. The trial and High Court had upheld the conviction, later reducing the charge from murder (Sec. 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to

RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 4879 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ratnu Yadav, was convicted by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court for murder of his step‑mother under Section 302 IPC, based primarily on an alleged extra‑judicial confession before a village officer (PW‑1) and the testimony of the deceased’s brother (PW‑5) that the appellant dragged the vict

P RAMESHversusSTATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 7379 July 2019Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder and dowry death under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. During trial, the prosecution sought to record the testimony of the appellant's two minor children, aged eight and six, but the trial judge excluded their evidence, deeming them incompetent because they did not know the judge or lawy

MUKESHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5909 July 2018Rejected

The case concerns the infamous Nirbhaya gang‑rape and murder, where the accused Mukesh was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Mukesh filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, alleging illegal arrest, police‑induced

VINAY SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5919 July 2018Dismissed

The petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal appeals in the Nirbhaya gang‑rape case. They raised numerous grounds, including the abolition of the death penalty, alleged errors in the assessment of eye‑witness testimony, the i

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusANAND MOHAN &ANR.

2015 INSC 4929 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were public servants, were accused of corrupt practices in the construction of a sub‑station and the Economic Offences Wing sought prior sanction for their prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Administrative Department declined to grant sanction, and the Special Judge direc

MANOJ & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 4529 July 2013Dismissed

The appellant Manoj and his relatives were convicted for the dowry death of Meena Devi, who died from burns after being allegedly doused with kerosene and set alight at the behest of her husband, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law. The prosecution relied heavily on a dying declaration recorded by Dr. Rajinder Rai, which w

LOKESH KUMAR JAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 4539 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Lower Division Clerk, was implicated in an FIR filed in 2000 for alleged embezzlement of Rs.4,39,617 based on a CAG report. The police investigation stalled for over nine years because the original records were never produced, despite repeated orders. Meanwhile, a departmental inquiry in 2008 ex

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusSANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.

2010 INSC 3959 July 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under s.95 CrPC ordering the forfeiture of every copy of the book "Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India" on the basis of an FIR alleging offences under s.153, s.153A and s.34 IPC. The High Court quashed the notification, holding it failed to state the grounds of the Gover

NOOR AGAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2008 INSC 7859 July 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, an Afghan national, was seized at Raja Sansi Airport with 22 packets of heroin and later arrested after a 15‑hour delay. He initially confessed to customs officials but later retracted, and was convicted under Sections 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act, a judgment affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supre

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGAJANAN @ HEMANT JANARDHAN WANKHEDE

2008 INSC 7889 July 2008Case Allowed

The accused was convicted by the trial court for kidnapping (IPC ss.363, 366) and rape (IPC s.376) of a girl who was 14 years old at the time of the offence, based on school records showing her date of birth as 4‑6‑1976 and medical evidence confirming her age. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the g

PANFUL NESSAversusMD. MIRAJ ALI AND ORS.

2008 INSC 7899 July 2008Case Allowed

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by ten accused who had been declared absconders and against whom non‑bailable warrants were issued for a murder case. The Gauhati High Court, instead of merely examining the propriety of the warrants, directed that the accus

HARPAL SINGH ETCversusDEVINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

1997 INSC 5559 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the acquittal of twelve students charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act for the murder of Jasbir Singh and grievous hurt to Sumer Singh during a campus political clash. The Court held that a four‑hour delay in lodging the FIR, the recording of

BANI SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

1996 INSC 7099 July 1996

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 366 and 368 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. They appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which admitted the appeal, stayed the sentence, and granted bail, but later dismissed the appeal for non‑prosecution because the appellant and his coun

HARISH KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

1996 INSC 7169 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Harish Kumar and Ram Sharan were convicted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Sec. 307 IPC) after a trial court had acquitted them. They pleaded private defence of person, claiming that earlier hostile incidents and injuries to their father and themselves created a genuine

GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL AND ANRversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1991 INSC 1449 July 1991Dismissed

The appellants forcibly took a teenage girl to a remote house, intoxicated her, undressed her and sexually assaulted her, after which she escaped from a truck and sought help. The trial court convicted them of rape under IPC s.376(2)(g) relying on the victim's uncontroverted testimony and the presumption of lack of con

AMLESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 8109 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Amlesh Kumar, was charged with multiple offences including dowry harassment and murder after his wife went missing. While seeking regular bail, the High Court of Patna accepted the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer's proposal to conduct narco‑analysis tests on all accused and witnesses. The Supreme Court hel

SATISH NIRANKARIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 4799 June 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Nirankari and his lover Pooja, whose inter‑caste marriage was opposed by her family, went to a vacant house, performed a makeshift marriage, and each consumed copper sulphate. Pooja ingested a larger dose, later hanged herself; Nirankari survived, raised alarm, and sought medical help. He was convicted under IPC

A SHANKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2011 INSC 4129 June 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant A. Shankar was charged under IPC sections 302, 307 and 324 for the murder of Murthy Prasad and the attempted murder of Shankara, the victim's brother. The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to contradictions in the eye‑wit

RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4139 May 2024Disposed off

The Sessions Court convicted two accused under Section 325 IPC, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fines. The Gujarat High Court reduced the term to four years and, invoking Section 357 of the CrPC, ordered each accused to deposit Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, on the condition that pa

M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

2023 INSC 5099 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Jerlyn Capital LLC Dubai, a foreign institutional investor, had shares and funds in an ICICI Bank account. Freeze orders under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were imposed in 2006 and 2010 on the basis of an investigation into alleged offences by Dharmesh Doshi, who had no employment or ownership link wit

DILIP HARIRAMANIversusBANK OF BARODA

2022 INSC 5399 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda had granted a loan to the partnership firm Global Packaging, which issued three cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the authorised signatory Simaiya Hariramani and his partn

BHOLA KUMHARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2022 INSC 5359 May 2022Disposed off

Bhola Kumhar was convicted under IPC section 376 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The Chhattisgarh High Court reduced his term to 7 years rigorous imprisonment but the appellant remained in custody for over 10 years due to alleged default on the f

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITEDversusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6639 May 2019Disposed off

Birla Corporation filed a criminal complaint alleging that respondents had stolen or misappropriated 54 confidential company documents and sought prosecution under IPC sections 379, 403, 411 read with 120B. The trial magistrate, relying on vague statements of the company representative and an employee, issued summons a

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PRJNCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE XIX) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERSversusK. S. PALANICHAMY AND ORS.

2017 INSC 12919 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State, on receipt of complaints from depositors that Global Capital Trading Services had defaulted on returns and allegedly defrauded investors, issued a Government Order on 24‑12‑2012 attaching the immovable properties of the partners under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Fina

IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNANversus.

2017 INSC 4559 May 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against Justice C.S. Karnan of the Madras High Court for repeatedly issuing letters and orders that alleged corruption and caste-based discrimination against numerous judges, including Supreme Court judges, and for publicly scandalising the judiciary. The Court

SUBRATA CHATTORAJversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 3929 May 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined petitions seeking to shift investigation of the multi‑state chit‑fund (Ponzi) scam, which defrauded lakhs of depositors of roughly Rs 10,000 crore, from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The scam involved companies operating across West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and

CHANDRA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 3859 May 2014Dismissed

On 26 January 1996 a bomb exploded at the SMS Stadium in Jaipur, leading to the arrest of six accused, including Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen and others. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver (PW‑1) who implicated the accused, on material recovered from the accused’s premises (ammonium nitrate, dynami

SWAPNIL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 3939 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Swapnil, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but his wife left the matrimonial home in April 2011 and later lodged two police complaints alleging dowry demands and threats to kill. A First Class Judicial Magistrate framed charges under IPC sections 498A and 506 Part II and under Sectio

DHAN RAJ @ DHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 3869 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of Ohan Raj and Badal for murder and robbery, which were based primarily on circumstantial evidence, the extra‑judicial confession of a co‑accused, and the recovery of a briefcase and wrist‑watch. The Court held that the co‑accused’s confessions were inconsistent—naming differ

MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHIversusMD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER

2014 INSC 3879 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Mosiruddin Munshi, paid Rs.5,00,001 to the accused for a plot of land but the seller failed to deliver title documents, prompting a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420 and 1208. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate treated the complaint as an FIR and ordered investigation under CrPC secti

CHANDRAN RATNASWAMIversusK.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 3349 May 2013Disposed off

The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement in which the appellant, Chandran Ratnaswami, alleged that the respondent, K.C. Palanisamy, misappropriated Rs.75 crore and transferred assets improperly. The matter was finally resolved by the Company Law Board and upheld by the Madras High Court, which ordered repayment

NIMMAGADDA PRASADversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3299 May 2013Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and 73 others, including Nimmagadda Prasad, under IPC sections 420, 409, 477‑A and the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged land allocation, illegal gratification, hawala transactions and other economic offences. After the charge‑she

Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3319 May 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the bail application of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, accused in a massive economic offence case involving alleged corruption, land allotments, and money laundering under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI had filed multiple charge sheets and reported that investigations into s

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusV. VIJAY SAI REDDY

2013 INSC 3339 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A‑2) in a case involving alleged conspiracy, fraud and corruption under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Court had granted bail, and the High Court affirmed it, but the Supreme

BHAGWAN DASSversusSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI

2011 INSC 3689 May 2011Dismissed

Bhagwan Dass was convicted for the murder of his daughter, who had left her husband and was living in an incestuous relationship with his cousin. The prosecution proved the case on circumstantial evidence, establishing motive, opportunity, the victim's post‑mortem findings of strangulation, the appellant’s failure to r

NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATIONversusNOIDA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3669 May 2011Disposed off

The Noida Entrepreneurs Association filed a writ petition alleging that the former CEO of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, misused his position between 1993-94 by awarding contracts without tender, evading conversion charges, and illegally converting a 13‑hectare city park

VIKRAM AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 5369 May 2007Dismissed

On 22 January 1997, eight accused persons assaulted Dnyandeo (who later died) and Bapu (who was injured) in the village of Pangulgavhan, using hard blunt objects and dragging them to a river. The FIR was lodged the next morning due to a delay caused by priority given to medical treatment. The accused were convicted und

STATE THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHIversusNAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSHAN GURU AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2909 May 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Parliament attack of 2001, after which the accused were charged under various statutes including the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). While the trial was pending, the accused sought an interlocutory order from the Special Judge to exclude intercepted telephone conversations as evidence

JAGGANATH CHOUDHARY AND ORS.versusRAMAYAN SINGH AND ANR.

2002 INSC 2759 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur) acquitted the accused in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The aggrieved party filed a revision under Section 401 of the CrPC before the Patna High Court, alleging that the trial court had wrongly discarded eye‑witness testimony. The High Court set asi

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusNAJAKAT ALIA MUBARAK ALI

2001 INSC 2689 May 2001Dismissed

The respondent was convicted in two separate offences and was arrested on the same day, remaining in jail as an under‑trial prisoner for both cases. Each trial court granted him set‑off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the period of pre‑sentence detention. The jail authorities, relying on

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusJ. JAYALALITHA

2000 INSC 3089 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu alleged that former Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha conspired with ten others to import coal at inflated prices, causing a loss of about Rs 6.5 crore. The Special Judge discharged her, finding the record insufficient to frame a charge, and the Madras High Court affirmed that order. On appeal, the

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.versusM. SAMBA SIVA RAO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3059 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate issued summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to M. Samba Siva Rao and others, who refused to comply with the directions. The Delhi High Court held that such refusal did not attract Section 56 of the Act and dismissed the complaints. On appeal, the Supreme Cour

ARNIT DASversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2000 INSC 3119 May 2000Dismissed

Arnit Das was arrested for a murder under IPC 302 and claimed to be a juvenile, asserting a birth date of 18‑09‑1982. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and, after a medical board report, concluded that Das was above 16 years of age on the dat

P.S. RAJYAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 6639 May 1996

P.S. Rajya, an Income‑Tax Officer, was charged under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his income. A departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission, and later concurred by the UPSC and the President, exonerated him of the cha

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSHYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI AND ORS.

1995 INSC 3559 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Nathu Banjara was brought to Rampura police station as a murder suspect, beaten and tortured by Sub‑Inspector Shyamsunder Trivedi, Head Constable Rajaram and Constable Ganniuddin, and died in custody. The police attempted to conceal the death by preparing false death reports and panchnamas and seeking crem

BACHAN SINGH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC.

1980 INSC 1209 May 1980Disposed off

The case involved a constitutional challenge to the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court, by a 4-1 majority, upheld the constitutionality of both provisions. The Court held that th

ROMA AHUJAversusTHE STATE AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 3369 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roma Ahuja filed an FIR (No. 121 of 2011) alleging offences of voluntarily causing hurt and assault under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, read with Section 34. The High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR on the ground that the charge‑sheet was filed after the one‑year limitation period prescribed under Section 468

SHUVENDU SAHAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2026 INSC 3679 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shuvendu Saha, was involved in a tenancy dispute with the respondent‑2 complainant, which was settled in a civil suit that was subsequently dismissed. Despite the settlement, the complainant filed a criminal complaint leading to an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 417, 418, 419, 420 and 506(2) IPC an

M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISESversusKAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 2889 April 2024Dismissed

M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises, a partnership firm, filed complaints alleging that four cheques issued by respondent No.1 were dishonoured for insufficient funds and were purportedly issued in discharge of a debt owed to the firm. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 4819 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The accused husband and his sister were charged with murder and dowry death after the victim, Sharada, died from 98% burn injuries. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations in which the victim identified her husband and sister as the perpetrators. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the possibil

JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHERversusSHIVNATH & OTHERS

2019 INSC 4939 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of several khasra lands, alleging that their fathers were lessees under a patta-lease. The appellants-defendants contended that the land had been auctioned in 1929 to their grandfather Gaya Din, who obtained a valid patta-lease (Ex.D‑20) an

PEER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 4829 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Babusingh in September 1992, for which fifteen persons were tried. The trial court convicted seven, including Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh and Peer Singh, based on a "Dehati Nalishi" and statements of witnesses PW‑1 and PW‑5. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the three appellan

RUPALI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2019 INSC 4869 April 2019Disposed off

Rupali Devi left her matrimonial home after enduring cruelty by her husband and his relatives and sought refuge at her parental home. She filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging cruelty. The central issue was whether the courts at the location of the parental home have jurisdiction to ent

MUNSHIRAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

2018 INSC 3159 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a deceased man filed an FIR under Section 306 IPC alleging that his son’s wife and her family had harassed the son, leading to his suicide. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the alleged abetment was not made out. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the qua

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 2619 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and related offences based primarily on a dying declaration (Ex.P‑22) recorded by a police constable who wrote the victim's words as dictated by a police inspector, with later overwriting and insertion of names in different ink. The trial court found the declaration unreliable, n

HIRABHAI JHAVERBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OHS.

2010 INSC 2039 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for an offence committed on 23 July 1986 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction and rejected the appellant's application to compound the offence. After the conviction, the victims filed an affidavit expressing their willi

AKHTAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2009 INSC 4719 April 2009Dismissed

The appellants Akhtar and others were charged under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC for a daylight assault on a disputed piece of land that resulted in two deaths and two injuries. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court convicted the surviving five accused on the basis of testimony of two inj

STATE OF ORISSAversusPRASANNA KUMAR MOHANTY

2009 INSC 4819 April 2009Disposed off

The State of Orissa prosecuted Prasanna Kumar Mohanty and examined the investigating officer, Bipin Behari Mahapatra, in chief on 1 September 1999. Although the defence was given two occasions to cross‑examine the witness, he was later recalled and failed to appear from 2003 to 2006, citing illness and old age. The Hig

MOHD. SHAFIversusMOHD. RAFIQ & ANR.

2007 INSC 3909 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

An FIR was lodged against the appellant for offences under Sections 307, 324 and later 302 IPC. The police filed a charge‑sheet only against another accused, while a witness (respondent No.1) testified that the appellant was present and participated in the incident. The appellant sought to be summoned under Section 319

JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 2229 April 2003Dismissed

The petitioners were already accused in a police case relating to a shooting incident, but were later summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC in a separate complaint case concerning the same occurrence. They challenged the summons, arguing that Section 319 could not be invoked against a person already an accused in anot

MOTI LALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2002 INSC 1889 April 2002Dismissed

Motilal was arrested for possessing skins of protected wildlife under several provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Central Government, invoking the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, issued a notification and, with the consent of the Uttar Pradesh Government, transferred the investigation to the

PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.versusB.S. AULAKH AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3939 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, B.S. Aulakh, was appointed on probation as Plant Protection Expert in MARKFED and discharged before completing probation. He was subsequently appointed Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED, later confirmed, and his post was abolished by a resolution dated 20‑12‑1977. Aulakh filed a suit on 28‑10‑1983 see

RAKESH SINGHA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 4969 April 1996Dismissed

The case arose from a violent incident on 10 May 1978 at a marriage venue in Simla, where a group of youths armed with hockey sticks, iron rods and other weapons attacked the gathering in retaliation for a prior altercation involving a parked jeep. The assault resulted in injuries to several persons and the death of Su

HARDIAL SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 4979 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Hardial Singh, Uttam Singh and Gurnam Singh were charged with murder, grievous hurt and rioting for firing on members of an informant party who were cultivating land belonging to Khazan Singh. The incident occurred when the accused, armed with guns and rifles, confronted the cultivators who were ploughin

GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC .versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1980 INSC 689 April 1980Case Partly allowed

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, a former minister, faced allegations of political corruption and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, fearing arrest for non‑bailable offences. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the applications, imposing a series of restrictive conditions and rejecting blanket b

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2026 INSC 2129 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, married to Dr. Rishi Raj, filed an FIR in March 2022 alleging torture, dowry demands and an attempt to strangle her, implicating her husband, his parents (the appellants) and his sister‑in‑law. The parents‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; the

DEVADASSANversusTHE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 2869 March 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Devadassan, was ordered by a Second Class Executive Magistrate to execute a bond under Sections 110 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to maintain good behaviour and peace. After the bond was executed, he was implicated in a murder case, thereby breaching the bond’s conditions. The magistra

SUMETI VIJversusM/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES

2021 INSC 1729 March 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed

The appellant, Sumeti Vij, ordered non‑woven fabric from the respondent, received the goods and issued two cheques to pay the invoices. Both cheques were returned by the bank for insufficient funds; legal notices were served but the appellant neither responded nor paid within the statutory period, leading to two compla

SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2021 INSC 1719 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners sought transfer of a criminal case (FIR No. 39/2016) from the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Delhi to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Prayagraj under Section 406 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court had earlier allowed the transfer ex parte, but the complainant (respondent No.4) applied for recall, whi

HUSSAIN AND ANR.versusUNION OF LNDIA

2017 INSC 2279 March 2017Disposed off

The appellants, who were in custody for several years—one under trial for an offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and another convicted under Section 302 of the IPC—challenged the denial of bail, invoking their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether bail must be

HARICHARAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,

2011 INSC 1949 March 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the custodial death of Mathura, who was taken into police custody, subjected to electric shock torture, and died shortly after release. The trial court acquitted the police officers, but the High Court convicted them under IPC sections 304 Part II and 330, relying on medical evidence of scrotal burns

DHARAMVEER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 1349 March 2010Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of two persons, based on medical evidence, post‑mortem reports and the testimony of two eye‑witnesses. They appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, challenging the conviction on grounds of

SANGAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 1369 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed, and the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34, without providing a detailed re‑appreciation of the e

KHILAN & ANRversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 1379 March 2010Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted eight persons for the murder of Toophan Singh, alleging a land dispute and an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The trial court convicted Prema, Khilan, Gainda and Sangram Singh under IPC sections 302 and 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting four o

JAVED MASOOD AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2010 INSC 1389 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Javed Masood and another were convicted for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's brother (PW‑5), who lodged a Parcha Bayan. Independent witnesses, including the shop owner (PW‑6) and several police personnel (PW‑18, PW‑29, PW‑30), testified that the brother and other a

YOGESH NARAIN SAXENAversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2007 INSC 2739 March 2007Dismissed

Yogesh Narain Saxena was convicted of murdering his neighbour's ten‑year‑old son, Sandeep, after the child's body was discovered in a tin box inside Saxena's quarter. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's proximity to the victim, his presence in the quarter, the recovery of

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