Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5,133 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

LALITAversusVISHWANATH & ORS.

2025 INSC 17330 January 2025Dismissed

The mother of a deceased woman appealed against the High Court's order acquitting four accused of abetment of suicide under Sections 306, 498A and 34 of the IPC. The trial court had convicted them based on evidence of harassment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, finding no reliable proof of abetment. The Su

SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS.versusVINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.

2024 INSC 7530 January 2024

The deceased owner of a property allegedly named his tenants as abettors in a suicide note, leading the police to detain the tenants and demolish the premises with the help of the deceased's relatives. The two tenants filed complaints under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which were initially mishandled by the magistrat

SACHIN GARGversusSTATE OF U.P & ANR.

2024 INSC 7230 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior manager of Exide Industries Ltd., was summoned by a magistrate to stand trial under Sections 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged criminal breach of trust and intimidation arising from a commercial dispute over the price of dissolved acetylene gas supplied by the respondent. The

NAIM AHAMEDversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2023 INSC 8530 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The prosecutrix, a married woman with three children, entered into a long‑term sexual relationship with the appellant after he promised to marry her. She became pregnant in 2011, later divorced her husband in 2014, and filed a complaint in 2015 alleging that the appellant had given a false promise of marriage. The Sess

SUNIL SAINI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2023 INSC 71530 January 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, who were witnesses to a 2016 Jat community agitation in Haryana that involved arson and loss of life, alleged that the trial in Jhajjar was compromised by the influence of a powerful advocate, threats to witnesses, and a biased prosecuting team. They filed a transfer petition under Article 139A(2) of t

AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2020 INSC 11230 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who are neighbours of the complainant, were involved in a long‑standing property dispute with the complainant's father. On 19 July 2016 a quarrel occurred, after which the police recorded proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC and directed both parties to maintain peace. Six weeks later

LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 7030 January 2018Disposed off

On December 10, 2006, six accused assaulted Vitthal Hingane and his brother Jagdish, resulting in Jagdish's death. The trial court and High Court convicted all six under sections 302 and 307 IPC, among other charges. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the guilt of each accused beyond r

SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 7530 January 2018

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly videography of crime scenes, in the petition Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. It considered whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory when the party producing the electronic record does not c

BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI BOKHIRIA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2013 INSC 6630 January 2013Case Allowed

The petitioners were added as co-accused under Section 319 of the CrPC in a murder trial that had already examined 134 witnesses. They sought a stay of the addition and of the trial, arguing that a blanket stay violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether the stay order of

SURENDRA KUMAR BHATIAversusKANHAIYA LAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 8830 January 2009Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a dispute over land acquired for a housing scheme where owners and power‑of‑attorney holders allegedly colluded with a Special Officer of the Rajasthan Housing Board to obtain allotment pattas fraudulently. An FIR was lodged under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The respondents (owners/attorney

JOHAR AND OTHERSversusMANGAL PRASAD & ANR.

2008 INSC 11830 January 2008Case Allowed

The appellants were convicted only under IPC s.323 r/w s.34 for causing simple injuries, while the State did not appeal. The complainant filed a criminal revision before the High Court, which re‑examined the entire evidence, criticised the autopsy surgeon, held that the case was actually IPC s.302 with intent to cause

RAN SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2008 INSC 12130 January 2008Case Partly allowed

A complaint under IPC sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 alleged dowry harassment by the husband, his parents, brother and sister‑in‑law. The Additional Sessions Judge held that only the husband could be prosecuted, finding no material against the other accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed this in

BHARATversusSTATE OF M.P.

2003 INSC 5130 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and robbery (Sec. 394 IPC) on the basis of two circumstantial facts: he was the last person seen with the deceased Phullobai and silver ornaments allegedly stolen from her were recovered from his house. The Supreme Court held that the ornaments were not properly iden

JATINDER SINGHversusRANJIT KAUR

2001 INSC 5630 January 2001Dismissed

Ranjit Kaur filed a criminal complaint against Jatinder Singh under IPC 494 for bigamy and against four others under IPC 109 for abetment. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default because the complainant was absent, and she subsequently filed a second complaint with the same allegations before the sa

PAVANA DIBBURversusTHE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2023 INSC 102929 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint under the PMLA alleging that Pavana Dibbur conspired with accused Madhukar Angur to launder proceeds of a fraud at Alliance University by using nominal sale deeds and her bank accounts. The appellant challenged the complaint, arguing that the only predicate offence in th

AMANDEEP SINGH SARANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2023 INSC 102829 November 2023Disposed off

The appellant, Amandeep Singh Saran, was charged with offences including IPC Section 409, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or up to ten years, and was being tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Raipur, a court that can impose at most seven years imprisonment. Having already spent ove

B.R.K. AATHITHANversusSUN GROUP & ANR.

2022 INSC 123629 November 2022Dismissed

The appellant, B.R.K. Aathithan, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC alleging defamation by the respondents for broadcasting his arrest. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint, finding that the allegations fell within the fourth exception to Section 499. The appellant sought redress throu

SUNEETHA NARREDDY & ANOTHERversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 123829 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, the daughter and wife of the deceased Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, sought transfer of the CBI trial concerning his mysterious murder from the CBI Special Court in Kadapa to a court outside Andhra Pradesh, alleging threats to witnesses and potential bias in the investigation. They argued that key witnesses h

PRADEEP S. WODEYARversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 79829 November 2021Dismissed

The appellants were accused of illegally purchasing, transporting and exporting iron ore without the requisite mining dispatch permits, violating the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and related environmental statutes. A Special Court, which is a Sessions Court, took cognizance of the offences o

M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2019 INSC 130429 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Alkem Laboratories Ltd, the marketer of a "sugarless" jelly manufactured by another company, was implicated after a food inspector seized samples from a retailer and a public analyst found sugar, constituting misbranding. The retailer later moved an application under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration A

G H P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEPversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 130329 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, accused in a rape case, sought a cloned copy of the contents of a memory card/pen‑drive that the prosecution intended to rely upon, arguing that the electronic record should be treated as a "document" under the Evidence Act and thus be furnished under Section 207 of the CrPC. The trial court and High Cou

ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURI AND OTHERSversusKUNAL SAHA AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 107629 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that three doctors were negligent, leading to his wife's death, and that the Inquiry Committee of the West Bengal Medical Council deliberately ignored expert reports to shield the doctors. He filed a criminal complaint against the Committee members under IPC sections 201, 120B and 219, claiming

R.S. SUJATHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 83229 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an IAS officer, challenged disciplinary proceedings by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking quash of a charge memo dated 30‑11‑1999, asserting she received it only on 19‑6‑2002 and thus was within the limitation period. The respondents contended the memo

DIDIGAM BIKSHAPATHI & ANR.versusSTATE OF AP.

2007 INSC 120529 November 2007Dismissed

The deceased, Budida Krishnamurthy, committed suicide after alleged harassment and financial disputes with the appellants, Didigam Bikshapathi and others. In his suicide note he implicated the appellants, leading to charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482

STATE OF ORISSAversusDEVENDRA NATH PADHI

2004 INSC 67929 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether, at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial court may consider material produced by the accused and whether the accused can invoke Section 91 to summon documents. The Court held that the Code grants no right to the

STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUN IL AND ANOTHER

2000 INSC 55129 November 2000Disposed off

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the acquittal of Sunil and Ramesh, who were convicted by a Sessions Court for kidnapping, raping and murdering a four‑year‑old girl, Anuradha. The High Court set aside the conviction, citing minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of three witnesses, the lack of independent w

SHIVAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

1994 INSC 56229 November 1994Appeal(s) allowed

Shivappa was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC solely on the basis of a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the confession, though later retracted, was voluntary and truthful. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the m

BHOOPENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2021 INSC 69129 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the son of a murdered village sarpanch, sought to overturn a High Court order that granted bail to the 60‑year‑old second respondent accused of conspiring in his father's murder. The prosecution alleged that the respondent used multiple SIM cards to communicate with a hired shooter, stored the weapons us

MAHENDRA K CversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2021 INSC 70029 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the suicide of a driver who left a note alleging that his employer, a Special Land Acquisition Officer, had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known income and had threatened the driver, leading to his death. The driver’s brother filed a complaint, resulting in an FIR for abetment of suicide und

THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERSversusDR. SALEEM UR REHMAN

2021 INSC 70329 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir appealed against a High Court order that quashed FIR No. 32/2012 and the entrustment order authorising Inspector Nisar Hussain to investigate alleged corruption and conspiracy offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code. The High Court

A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHERversusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

2021 INSC 69729 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved six accused persons charged under the Customs Act for allegedly exporting sandalwood and tiles clandestinely. The trial courts in two separate proceedings acquitted all accused, but the Madras High Court convicted them in a common judgment, relying on evidence from only one of the trials. The Supreme

HARIRAM BHAMBHIversusSC/ST

2021 INSC 70129 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Scheduled Caste victim, filed an FIR under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the murder of his brother. The first respondent was granted bail by the Rajasthan High Court without any notice or opportunity to be heard being given to the victim, contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section

TOFAN SINGHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2020 INSC 62029 October 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered whether officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be use

CHUNTHURAMversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2020 INSC 61629 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Chunthuram and co-accused Jagan Ram were convicted for the murder of Laxman under IPC sections 302 and 34. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's evidence, finding that the recovered weapons were never forensic‑linked to the crime, the chemical analysis report was missing, and a shirt forensic repor

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.versusLALU SINGH

2013 INSC 73229 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

An oral statement led to registration of a murder case, initially investigated by the police station officer-in-charge. The investigation was later transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and an Inspector of CID conducted the inquiry and filed the charge‑sheet. The accused challenged the charge‑sheet

MANISH TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 72829 October 2013Dismissed

Manish Trivedi, an elected municipal councillor and member of the Banswara Municipal Board, was charged under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe in connection with a kiosk allotment. He contended that, as an elected official, he was not a "public servant" and thus could no

PRASANTA KUMAR SARKARversusASHIS CHATTERJEE & ANR.

2010 INSC 75229 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, brother of a 57‑year‑old widow who was found strangulated, filed a criminal appeal against the Calcutta High Court's order granting regular bail to the accused under Section 439 of the CrPC. The accused had been arrested, identified by a witness in a second test identification parade, and faced a charge

VIJAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2010 INSC 75029 October 2010Reference answered

The Supreme Court, hearing a Constitution Bench reference arising from Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2005, examined the scope of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which governs personal searches. The Court considered whether the provision imposes a mandatory duty on the empowered offi

VARUN CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2010 INSC 75729 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Income Tax Officer was found murdered near his residence. Three accused were arrested; the prosecution relied on a knife recovered from one accused, blood‑stained clothes from another, and the recovery of a motorcycle whose registration number was partially identified. No eye‑witness saw the accused, no te

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusDHARKOLE @ GOVIND SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62729 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court acquittal of three accused who were convicted by the trial court for murder and related offences under Sections 302, 149, 148 and 147 of the IPC. The High Court had set aside the conviction on the ground that medical evidence suggested the weapon (gupti) was not sharp e

PREM SAGARversusDHARAMBIR AND ORS .

2003 INSC 57429 October 2003Case Partly allowed

The case involved three accused—Dharambir, Joginder and Karambir—who were convicted for the murders of Dalbir, Vijender and Smt. Kitabo under Sections 302, 34 and 120‑B of the IPC. The trial court sentenced Dharambir and Joginder to death and Karambir to life imprisonment; the High Court commuted the death sentences to

STATE OF PUNJABversusJOGINDER SINGH AND ANR.

2003 INSC 58229 October 2003Disposed off

The State of Punjab appealed the High Court's acquittal of Joginder Singh and Nachhattar Singh for the death of Makhan Singh. The incident occurred on 20 April 1992 when Joginder Singh demanded Rs.100 from Makhan, who could not pay, and subsequently pressed his neck, causing death, as confirmed by a post‑mortem showing

BHARATBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2002 INSC 44729 October 2002Dismissed

While on patrol at a bus stand in Upleta, police observed the accused flee upon seeing them, intercepted him, and searched him in the presence of two Panchas, discovering about 12 grams of charas. The accused was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the conviction was affirmed b

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusCHANDRIKA

1999 INSC 50229 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent Chandrika and two others were charged with murder under IPC sections 302, 307 and 34. The Sessions Court convicted Chandrika under section 304 and sentenced him to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, Chandrika did not contest the conviction but sought a plea bargain on the sentence; the Allaha

MOHAMMED KUNJU AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1999 INSC 50329 October 1999Disposed off

Two local residents stood as sureties for the bail of a foreign national charged with offences under the IPC and foreigner statutes. The magistrate later relaxed one of the bail conditions, after which the accused absconded, leading to forfeiture of the bail bonds and a penalty of Rs.25,000 against each surety. The sur

STATE OF U.P.versusBAL KISHAN DAS AND ANR.

1996 INSC 125129 October 1996Disposed off

The case concerned the murder of Rama, a young woman who disappeared from her matrimonial home and whose body was later found in a hold‑all at New Delhi railway station. The prosecution relied on identification of the victim by her sister through the red saree and glass bangles, forensic evidence of strangulation, and

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAIK & ORS.

1986 INSC 22329 October 1986Dismissed

The petition sought revocation of special leave that had been granted by the Supreme Court in the presence of the respondents' counsel after hearing. The Court examined whether it could set aside its own order of special leave, considering the procedural propriety of the original grant and the constitutional implicatio

RAMGOPAL & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 56829 September 2021Disposed off

The appellants were convicted of offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) Act for assaulting the complainants in separate incidents in 2000 and 1995. After the convictions, the parties entered into amicable settlements, and the appellants sought to have the non‑compoundable offe

NEERU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2015 INSC 71329 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Neeru Yadav challenged the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.2, a repeat offender accused of multiple heinous offences including murder and armed assault. The High Court had relied primarily on the doctrine of parity, noting that other co‑accused had been released on bail, and ha

ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 70629 September 2015Dismissed

Essar Teleholdings Ltd. and other petitioners challenged a Delhi High Court order and a Delhi government notification that appointed a Special Judge to try all offences, including those under the Indian Penal Code, arising from the 2G spectrum scam. They sought a joint trial of the main case and a second supplementary

NARENDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 70929 September 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of a village Sarpanch on 27 June 1997, for which six accused were convicted under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds that the FIR was ante‑dated, the injured eye‑witness (PW‑3) fabricated his injuries

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusNARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN & ANR.

2011 INSC 72329 September 2011Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought to abandon land acquisition of 284.03 hectares in five villages, prompting Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) to argue that the abandonment order was void because the land had already been taken into possession. The Supreme Court, after a spot inspection ordered by it, found that the tenure

BALWANT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF H.P.

2008 INSC 110029 September 2008Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Balwant Singh and others against their convictions under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of the IPC for the death of Renu Bala. The Court clarified that Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) are distinct offences; cruelty as defined in the Explanation to 498A must be proved

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusMANOJ KUMAR @ CHHOTU

2008 INSC 110129 September 2008Case Partly allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Manoj Kumar, who was charged with rape, assault and criminal intimidation under Sections 376, 506 and 511 IPC. The trial court acquitted him on the basis of benefit of doubt, but the State sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

MOTI LAL SARAFversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASMIR AND ANR.

2006 INSC 68329 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Motilal Saraf, a former manager of the State Bank of India, was repeatedly charged under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly receiving illegal gratification. After an initial charge sheet was quashed by the High Court for lack of a valid sanction, the State filed fresh charge sheets on the sa

S. CHINNASAMY AND ANR.versusSEED INSPECTOR, COIMBATORE AND ANR.

2006 INSC 68429 September 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellants, S. Chinnasamy and R. Soundarajan, were found operating a seed shop without a valid licence and in violation of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. A seed inspector seized a small quantity of cotton and tomato seeds, noted the absence of a price list and records, and the Special Judge convicted them under t

TARAKESHWAR SAHUversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2006 INSC 66629 September 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Tarakeshwar Sahu, was convicted by the trial court and the Jharkhand High Court of rape under sections 376/511 IPC for forcibly taking a 12‑year‑old girl to his gumti with intent to commit sexual intercourse, although the girl was rescued before any act was completed. The Supreme Court examined whether t

GHANSHYAMversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 66529 September 2006Dismissed

Ghanshyam, a tenant, alleged that his landlord Surya Prasad (respondent No.3) illegally evicted him with armed men on 8 November 1986, causing serious injuries. An FIR under Sections 147 and 307 IPC was lodged and a charge‑sheet filed, but the Public Prosecutor later moved an application under Section 321 of the Crimin

STATE OF GOAversusBABU THOMAS

2005 INSC 45729 September 2005Disposed off

The State of Goa prosecuted Babu Thomas, a Joint Manager of Goa Shipyard Ltd., under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification from a contractor. Two sanction orders were issued—one by the Company Secretary and another by the Chairman and Managing Director—both without the requisite approval

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusTEG BAHADUR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 56029 September 2004Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of Teg Bahadur and others, who were charged under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC for the death of Suman within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged dowry demand and harassment leading to her death, but many witnesses turned hostil

ARUN GARGversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2004 INSC 56129 September 2004Case Partly allowed

Arun Garg was convicted for the dowry death of his wife Seema, who died within three years of marriage after alleged repeated dowry demands and harassment, culminating in her poisoning with aluminium phosphide. The trial court sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000; the High Court conf

K. BHASKARANversusSANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN AND ANR.

1999 INSC 45029 September 1999Case Partly allowed

The appellant K. Bhaskaran was accused of issuing a Rs.1 lakh cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The complainant, his brother, sent a notice of demand by registered post, which was returned as 'unclaimed'. The trial magistrate acquitted the appellant on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction a

KOLI CHUNILAL SAVJI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1999 INSC 44529 September 1999Dismissed

The husband and mother‑in‑law of Dhanuben were alleged to have set fire to her and her son, resulting in their deaths. Two dying declarations were recorded – one by a police officer and another by an Executive Magistrate – but the trial court excluded them and acquitted the accused of murder while convicting them under

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusCAPTAIN BUDDHIKOTA SUBHA RAO

1989 INSC 29929 September 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Captain B. Subha Rao, a retired naval officer, was arrested at Bombay Airport for allegedly breaching the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. He filed a series of bail applications; Judge Puranik rejected a batch on 6 June 1989 without noting a pending application (Criminal Application No. 995/8

A.K ROY & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1986 INSC 20529 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, A.K. Roy and others, were charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a Food Inspector from Faridkot filed a complaint alleging adulteration of noodles. The Inspector claimed authority to prosecute based on a delegation of power from the State Government to the Food (Health) Author

K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2024 INSC 64229 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a murder trial where the accused (Respondent No.2) first sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court. He then filed a fresh application under Section 216 seeking alteration of the charge, which was also dismissed by the Sessi

STATE OF HARYANAversusDHARAMRAJ

2023 INSC 78429 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana appealed against an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that granted anticipatory bail to Dharmaraj, who was charged under multiple IPC sections including 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342, 427, 186, 353 and 364. Dharmaraj had been declared a proclaimed offender on 5 February 2021, yet he appl

ZUNAIDversusSTATE OF UP. & ORS.

2023 INSC 77829 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant lodged an FIR alleging assault and other offences, after which the police submitted a final report under Section 173 CrPC. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a Protest Petition, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejected the police report and treated the petition as a complaint, proceeding under Sect

SATBIR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2023 INSC 78629 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Satbir Singh filed a criminal complaint alleging that former employees stole proprietary data and used it to manufacture equipment. During the trial, his testimony was recorded before the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) report was produced. When the CFSL expert testified, he described data found on the accu

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANIL KUMAR @ BADKA & ORS.

2018 INSC 76029 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Anil Kumar @ Badka and others for offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B. The trial court had acquitted the accused, prompting the State to file an application for leave to appeal under CrPC s.378(3). The Allahabad High Court rejected the application with

AHSANversusSTATE OF U.P.

2017 INSC 81929 August 2017Dismissed

On 8 October 2004, three accused, including the appellant Ahsan, entered the house of the victim's uncle armed with country‑made pistols and fired at family members, causing the death of a still‑born child and grievous injuries to others, including a head wound to Shahzad inflicted by Ahsan. The appellant was convicted

STATE OF M.P.versusAYUB KHAN

2012 INSC 36029 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Ayub Khan was apprehended in Guna, Madhya Pradesh, possessing a country‑made barrel gun, two bullets and 50 grams of explosives without a licence. He was convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100, accounting for se

GURU BASAVARAJ @ BEENE SETTAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 35629 August 2012Dismissed

Guru BasavaraJ @ Beene Settappa, the driver of a tractor‑trailer, was convicted under IPC sections 279, 337, 338 and 304‑A and Motor Vehicles Act section 187 for a highway accident that caused multiple injuries and one death. The accused claimed the crash resulted from mechanical failure and argued that his young age a

MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHIDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 35729 August 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, was one of ten Pakistani terrorists who launched a coordinated attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008, killing 166 people and injuring 238. He was convicted by the trial court on multiple charges including waging war against the Government of India, murder, and terroris

STATE OF PUNJABversusRAKESH KUMAR

2008 INSC 99729 August 2008Case Partly allowed

The accused, Rakesh Kumar, was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and rape of a girl who was under sixteen years of age. The trial court sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment for the kidnapping and seven years for the rape; the Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced

HARI SINGH GONDversusSTATE OF M.P.

2008 INSC 99829 August 2008Dismissed

Hari Singh Gond was convicted of murder and related offences for beating his father‑in‑law, Harilal Gond, and setting fire to the house, resulting in the victim's death. The appellant claimed protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. The Supr

BHOLU RAMversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2008 INSC 99929 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bholu Ram, a clerk in a government school, was charged with forgery and cheating under IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471. During trial he applied under CrPC s.319 to add the headmaster, Sher Singh, as an accused and the magistrate issued summons. The headmaster sought to recall the summons on the g

LAKSHMI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2002 INSC 35729 August 2002Disposed off

The case involved eight accused who allegedly shot two men, Ratan and Ramesh, and burned their bodies on a funeral pyre in retaliation for the murder of Ishwar Chand. The trial court convicted six of the accused under Sections 302, 149 and 201 of the IPC, while acquitting two; the High Court later reduced the convictio

DELHI ADMINISTRATION (NOW N.C.T. OF DELHI)versusMANOHAR LAL

2002 INSC 35629 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Manohar Lal, was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment plus a fine. The trial court and the First Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the power to commute under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Pr

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusMIR MOHAMMAD OMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 42229 August 2000Case Partly allowed

The State of West Bengal prosecuted Mir Mohammad Omar and six co‑accused for abducting a 29‑year‑old businessman, Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, with the intention of killing him, and for his subsequent murder. The trial court convicted them under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC but acquitted them of murder; the Calcutta

KISHORE CHANDversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1990 INSC 26029 August 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC for the murder and concealment of Joginder Singh, based primarily on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: identification by two liquor‑shop owners, an extra‑judicial confession to a village pradhan, and the recovery of a saw blade under a Section

DR. V. K. SAXENAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND VICE VERSA

1983 INSC 10629 August 1983Dismissed

Dr. V.K. Saxena and a nurse, Bhagwati Singh, were convicted for the murder of Sudha, Saxena's wife. The Sessions Judge sentenced Saxena to death and the nurse to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court reduced Saxena's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted the nurse, citing a split opinion among its jud

SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWANversusSTATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS

2025 INSC 96929 July 2025Disposed off

The appellant Sukhdev Yadav was convicted of murder, kidnapping and related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment fixed at twenty years without remission, along with fines. After serving the full twenty‑year term on 9 March 2025, he sought release but the Delhi High Court had earlier denied his furlough applicati

DAXABENversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2022 INSC 77129 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The widow of Shaileshkumar Patel challenged the quashing of FIR No. I‑11209016200112, filed under Section 306 IPC for alleged abetment of his suicide, on the ground that the complainant and accused had reached a monetary settlement. The Gujarat High Court, invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, set

MAUJI RAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2019 INSC 82529 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, seven accused persons, were charged with murder and several other offences for the killing of Sumit Kumar. Their bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court but were later granted by the Allahabad High Court without recording any reasons. The complainant, father of the deceased, appealed to t

SUDHIR CHAUDHARY ETC. ETC.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2016 INSC 56329 July 2016Disposed off

The appellants were charged under Sections 384, 511, 420 and 120B IPC and, while in police custody, consented to provide voice samples for comparison with a recording obtained during a sting operation. They objected to being asked to read out inculpatory material from the disputed conversation, arguing that the process

PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMUversusKOWURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 52829 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant alleged that A‑1 to A‑12 conspired, motivated by political rivalry, to assault and attempt to kill him, leading to a charge‑sheet under Sections 120‑B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 (r.w.) and 149 of the IPC. While the trial was pending, A‑1 to A‑3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash

T. C. THANGARAJversusV. ENGAMMAL & ORS.

2011 INSC 52929 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that a police inspector, his wife, and an associate defrauded her of Rs.3 lakh in a loan transaction and that the investigation was halted after the money was returned. She filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to have the case investigated by the CBI, arguing that the presence

R.K. ANANDversusREGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT

2009 INSC 95929 July 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the criminal contempt proceedings against senior advocate R.K. Anand and former special public prosecutor I.U. Khan arising from a televised NDTV sting operation that captured their alleged attempts to influence a prosecution witness in the high‑profile BMW hit‑and‑run trial. The Court held t

KARNAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2009 INSC 95829 July 2009Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined two criminal appeals arising from convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act where police officers had acted on prior information without first recording it in writing or sending a copy to their superior as required by Section 42. Conflicting precedents – Abdu

G. SOMESHWAR RAOversusSAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO & ANR. ETC.

2009 INSC 96829 July 2009Dismissed

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the appellant had issued a pronote and a cheque which later bounced. The appellant claimed the documents were forged and applied to a magistrate for their examination by a handwriting expert; the application was dismissed

NASIRUDOIN KHAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2008 INSC 87329 July 2008Disposed off

The appellants attacked an informant and his brothers with weapons over a land dispute, causing injuries that led to a police complaint. They claimed they acted in private defence, but the trial court convicted one appellant under IPC Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and the other two unde

MAULAVI HUSSEIN HAJI ABRAHAM UMARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2004 INSC 40929 July 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari, was arrested in connection with a train attack and initially placed in police custody. An application under Section 49(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) was filed to extend his police remand beyond the statutory 30‑day limit, and the Special Court appr

SANABOINA SATYANARAYANAversusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 34129 July 2003Dismissed

Sanaboina Satyanarayana, convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC), dowry harassment (Sec. 498A IPC) and tampering with evidence (Sec. 201 IPC), sought remission of his life sentence under a Government Order dated 25‑01‑2000 issued under Article 161 of the Constitution. The Order excluded "prisoners convicted for crimes again

NOORSABA KHATOONversusMOHAD. QUASIM

1997 INSC 58029 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Noorsaba Khatoon, a Muslim woman, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance for herself and her three minor children after being deserted by her husband, Mohd. Quasim, who later divorced her and took a second wife. The trial court ordered maintenance for the wife an

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAMversusSHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS.

1980 INSC 13829 July 1980Dismissed

Residents of Ratlam filed a complaint under s.133 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the Municipal Council had failed to provide sanitary facilities, construct drainage, and stop industrial discharge, creating a public nuisance. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate ordered the municipality to construct drains, provi

TARA SFNGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 47729 June 2016Dismissed

The petitioners, convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to more than ten years' rigorous imprisonment, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 32 directing the authorities to grant them remission as per the Punjab Jail Manual. The Court examined whether Section 32A of the NDPS Act bars such remission and whether Ar

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAG RAJ SINGH @ HANSA

2016 INSC 44429 June 2016Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Jag Raj Singh (alias Hansa) for possession of opium recovered from a jeep. The Supreme Court examined whether the police complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act when they acted on secret information and conducted the search. It

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP.versusBHUSHAN CHANDER & ANR.

2016 INSC 46029 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation appealed against a High Court order that set aside the conviction of its former Godown Assistant, Bhushan Chander, for criminal breach of trust (IPC s.409) and related offences (s.467, 468, 471) on the ground that prosecution required prior sanction under CrPC s.197. The Supreme

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusLAL SINGH @ MANJIT SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 46329 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Lal Singh, convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced to life imprisonment, applied for premature release under CrPC ss.432 and 433 after being transferred to a Punjab jail. The Gujarat Government rejected his application; the Punjab High Court directed Gujarat to reconsider

PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARABversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016 INSC 45329 June 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Praful Sudhakar Parab, a pay‑sheet clerk in the Maharashtra police, lured his colleague, Senior Clerk Prabhudas Narayan Raut, to the office on 7 December 1996 and the victim never returned. The victim’s wife and son testified that they saw the accused and the victim leave together after 9 p.m., and the a

JAMNADASversusSTATE OF M.P.

2016 INSC 46429 June 2016Dismissed

The case involved the murder of a young bride within six months of her marriage; her body was dismembered and dumped in a park. The prosecution proved that the murder occurred inside the appellants' house, that blood stains were found there, and that the mother‑in‑law was seen discarding the body. The appellants (the f

WAMAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 41929 June 2011Dismissed

The case arose from a long‑standing land and water dispute that culminated in a violent assault on Suresh and Atmaram Bohare, who later died of their injuries. The prosecution relied on the testimony of four close relatives of the victims, medical autopsy reports, and weapons recovered from some accused. The appellants

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MAJOR GENERAL H.C. PATHAKversusMAJOR S.K. SHARMA

1987 INSC 16429 June 1987Dismissed

The case arose when Major S.K. Sharma complained before a Judicial Magistrate that Colonel Ali and Brigadier Randhawa had assaulted him, leading the Magistrate to take cognizance under the Criminal Procedure Code and issue summons. The Union of India moved to have the matter transferred to the Army authorities for disp

RAKHI SADHUKHANversusRAJA SADHUKHAN

2025 INSC 78929 May 2025Disposed off

Rakhi Sadhukhan filed for divorce from Raja Sadhukhan and was awarded permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years by the Calcutta High Court. She later contended that the amount was insufficient given the husband’s higher income and the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriag

SONU @ SUNILversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2020 INSC 40929 May 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sonu @ Sunil was convicted along with four others for the robbery and murder of Bharosilal in September 2008, based largely on circumstantial evidence, the recovery of a mobile phone from his possession, and the testimony of a witness (PW‑5) who claimed to have overheard a conspiracy. The prosecution alle

SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERSversusVIRENDER GANDHI

2019 INSC 68829 May 2019Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque. Their criminal complaints were filed before the amendment (effective 1 September 2018) that inserted Section 148, which empowers an appellate court to order the appellant to deposit at least 20% of the fi

INDRA DALALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 43629 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Nand Karan, for which three appellants were convicted of conspiracy and murder based largely on confessional statements recorded while they were in police custody and the recovery of a scooter allegedly used in the crime. The appellants challenged the admissibility of those confessions u

ROHTASH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 36829 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Rohtash Kumar, was convicted of murdering his wife, Sonia, an inter‑caste spouse, after she was found dead in a hostel garden. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" testimony of the hostel caretaker, the appellant's possession and use of the victim's mobile

ENGINEERING EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCILversusUSHA ANAND AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 36529 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC) received a sum of Rs.22 lakh from Y, the husband of respondent Usha Anand, and similar amounts from his three brothers, who deposited the money voluntarily to avoid arrest, not under any court order. The brothers were later acquitted and the trial court ordered refund of

STATE OF H.P .versusSURESH KUMAR @ DC

2009 INSC 85129 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against the Himachal High Court’s acquittal of Suresh Kumar, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court for raping a minor girl and wrongful confinement under IPC sections 376 and 342. The victim, a girl aged between 5 and 12, identified the accused as her rapist and her testimo

PUNIT BERIWALAversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

2025 INSC 58229 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Punit Beriwala, alleged that a receipt‑cum‑agreement to sell dated 12 April 2004 was a fraudulent transaction in which the accused, Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh, misrepresented their authority as Karta of the HUF and induced the appellant to pay a large sum. The appellant filed a criminal complaint i

ATBIRversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2022 INSC 49229 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Atbir, convicted of multiple murders and originally sentenced to death, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by a presidential order that barred parole and any remission for the remainder of his natural life. He applied for furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, but the Director General of Prisons denie

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITIEE A.P. ETC.versusM/S M.K. EXPORTS, A.P. ETC. ETC.

2011 INSC 34529 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Agricultural Market Committee of Andhra Pradesh initiated criminal proceedings against traders of M.K. Exports for non‑payment of market fees that were re‑assessed under Section 12‑8(5) of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The traders filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of C

DILPESH BALCHANDRA PANCHALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2010 INSC 25329 April 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal, was convicted along with two co‑accused for the murder of Indrasinh under IPC s.302 and s.114. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim's parents, who witnessed the attack, medical evidence indicating two fatal knife wounds, and the recovery of the murder weapon f

AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2010 INSC 25429 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Amarjit Singh and co‑accused were convicted by a trial court for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC, read with Section 34, and sentenced to imprisonment. They appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the single judge dismissed the appeal, stating there was no reason to re‑appreciate the evidence

BAIJ NATH SAHversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 25529 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Four accused, including Baij Nath Sah, were tried for kidnapping a minor under Sec. 366-A IPC. The trial court convicted them, and the High Court reduced the charge to Sec. 363 and lessened the sentence. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the sole evidence against Baij Nath Sah—a statement recorded under Sec.

DAUNA DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2009 INSC 63829 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Dauna Devi was convicted along with another accused for murder and concealment of body under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC, based solely on circumstantial evidence that the dead child's body was recovered from a house allegedly belonging to the accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant h

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAGDISH PRASAD

2009 INSC 64229 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Jagdish Prasad was convicted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced by the trial court to six months' rigorous imprisonment, the minimum punishment prescribed. The Rajasthan High Court commuted the sentence to a fine of Rs.6,000 and directed the appropriate Government to

S. RAMA KRISHNAversusS. RAMI REDDY (D) BY HIS LRS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 54329 April 2008Case Allowed

The appellant issued two cheques to the original complainant, who later died. A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed, and an application for substitution of the deceased complainant was made but remained pending. Because the legal heirs of the complainant were ab

M.C.D.versusSTATE OF DELHI AND ANR.

2005 INSC 23929 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to builder Gurcharan Singh, who had been convicted under Sections 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The High Court had not called for

STATE OF HARYANAversusJARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 32529 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The police, including a Superintendent of Police, stopped a tanker on a public highway and searched it, discovering 73 gunny bags of poppy husk. The accused were convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, but the High Court acquitted them, holding that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. On appe

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSADAN K. BORMAL AND ANR.

2004 INSC 32629 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal filed a criminal appeal against S.K. Bormal and others, who were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged to have been committed in August 1988. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9 September 1988 by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the case was transferred

MUNDRIKA MAHTO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2002 INSC 24229 April 2002

The deceased Ramanand Mahto was attacked by a mob of 10‑15 persons who pulled him from his scooter, severed his head with sharp weapons and dragged his trunk to a pond. Police arrived within fifteen minutes and recorded statements of eye‑witnesses, including the nephew of the deceased, whose FIR named some but not all

NEPC MICON LTD. AND ORS.versusMAGMA LEASING LTD.

1999 INSC 21129 April 1999Dismissed

The appellant NEPC Micon Ltd. and its directors issued five cheques to the respondent Magma Leasing Ltd. which were returned by the bank with the endorsement "account closed." The respondent instituted criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellants argued that "account cl

K. CHANDRASEKHAR ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 20929 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala Government, after initially consenting to CBI investigation of espionage cases under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, later withdrew that consent to allow State Police to conduct a "further investigation". The Supreme Court held that once the CBI, acting on the State's consent, comple

DAULAT RAMversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1997 INSC 45229 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Daulat Ram, a Punjab police constable, was convicted of murdering a 25‑year‑old man, Narinder Singh, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on two alleged eyewitnesses, the victim's uncle and a companion, and asserted that the killing occurred at 2 p.m., supported by a post‑m

MADAN GOPAL KAKKADversusNAVAL DUBEY AND ANR.

1992 INSC 14029 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Madan Gopal Kakkad, sought to overturn a High Court judgment that convicted Naval Dubey, a medical graduate, only of outraging a woman's modesty under IPC s.354 and imposed a fine. The victim, an eight‑year‑old girl, testified that the accused stripped her, forced oral sex and slightly penetrated her vul

M.R. PRATAPversusV.M. MUTHUKRISHNAN, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL - III, MADRAS

1992 INSC 14129 April 1992Dismissed

M.R. Pratap, the Managing Director of Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., signed and verified the company's income‑tax return for AY 1965‑66, which was later found to be false. He was prosecuted under section 277 of the Income‑Tax Act for wilfully making a false verification. The appellant contended that the term "person"

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAYAK & ANR.

1988 INSC 12329 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was prosecuted for corruption offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, in an earlier order dated 16.2.1984, suo motu transferred the case from the Special Judge to the Bombay High Court for speedy trial. The appe

PUSHPADEVI M. JATIAversusM.L. WADHAVAN, ADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 14129 April 1987Dismissed

Mohanlal Jatia was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on the basis of documents seized from his brother‑in‑law and statements recorded by R.C. Singh of the Enforcement Directorate. His wife, Pushpadevi Jatia, challenged the detention before th

AJMER SINGH ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 14229 April 1987Dismissed

The appellants, convicted by a General Court‑Martial under the Army Act, sought the benefit of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which allows set‑off of detention time during investigation, inquiry or trial against the term of imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the CrPC provisions apply to

PATTU RAJANversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2019 INSC 42029 March 2019Dismissed

The appellant, Pattu Rajan, was convicted for the murder of his brother-in-law, Santhakumar, after a series of abductions and attempts to force the victim's wife, PW1, to become his third wife. The prosecution proved the murder through circumstantial evidence, including PW1's detailed testimony, corroboration by her mo

P. SURENDRANversusSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 43529 March 2019Disposed off

An FIR was lodged under several IPC sections and later under Section 3(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused filed an anticipatory bail application, which the District Judge dismissed; the petitioner then approached the Madras High Court, but its registry ref

GYANESHWAR SHYAMALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2016 INSC 28229 March 2016Dismissed

The case involves a violent incident on 9 Oct 1983 in which a group of 35 accused, including the appellants (accused Nos. 1‑5, 10 and 25), armed themselves and attacked Satyaban and an independent witness, PW 4 Muralidhar Kuila, before abducting Satyaban, who was never recovered. The prosecution relied on family member

RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2011 INSC 23029 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Ranjit Singh was charged with murdering his wife Gurmail Kaur on 1 September 1990, with the prosecution alleging that he, his sisters and his grandmother participated in the killing. The evidence consisted of a post‑mortem report indicating strangulation, an electric wire found near the body, and extra‑judicial confess

HEM RAJ AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2005 INSC 16229 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Hemant Kumar under Section 302 IPC based primarily on the testimony of two related eyewitnesses, PW4 and PW5. An independent eyewitness, Kapur Singh, who was present at the scene, was never examined, and the prosecution offered no explanation for this omission. The Court

STATE OF M.P.versusS.P. SALES AGENCIES AND ORS.

2004 INSC 21729 March 2004Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh seized stocks of kattha and cutch from S.P. Sales Agencies for moving them without a transit pass under the Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961, and initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The High Court quashed the seizure, holding

SMT. SHAILversusSHRI MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 21629 March 2004Disposed off

The petitioner, Smt. Shail, was a victim of offences under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC by the respondent, Manoj Kumar, who later married her to avoid conviction but subsequently deserted her. She filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, which was delayed; the High Court

STATE OF U.P.versusSHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 18529 March 2001Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted Shambhu Nath Singh and others for murder and related offences under IPC sections 302, 307 and 149. The prosecution’s key eye‑witness, PW‑1, was examined in chief but his cross‑examination was repeatedly postponed despite his presence on numerous dates, while the accused were often

UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASIITRA

2001 INSC 18429 March 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was remanded to judicial custody for offences under the IPC and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. After the statutory 60‑day period for filing a charge‑sheet elapsed, he applied for bail, asserting the indefeasible right under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Special

K. KARUNAKARANversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 16729 March 2000Dismissed

During K. Karunakaran's tenure as Chief Minister, the Kerala State Supplies Corporation entered into a contract for importing palmolein, which was later alleged to be corrupt. A petition under Article 226 seeking registration of a criminal case was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent FIR filed by an oppositio

GIRISH YADAV AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1996 INSC 46029 March 1996Dismissed

The accused were convicted of murder under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC for chasing and assaulting the deceased, an act witnessed by three eye‑witnesses. The appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds, chiefly that the First Information Report (FIR) was not promptly lodged, that the copy of the FIR

KAZI LHENDUP DORJIversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

1994 INSC 12929 March 1994Case Allowed

The former Chief Minister of Sikkim challenged a 1987 notification that withdrew the State's consent, given under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, for CBI investigations into alleged corruption. The petition raised whether a State could revoke such consent, whether section 21 of the Genera

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order

RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 11929 February 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik, was convicted of raping and murdering a three‑year‑old girl under IPC sections 376(2)(f), 377 and 302. The prosecution relied on a chain of circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony that the accused last saw the child with him, the discovery of the child's nude b

MANO DUTT & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 12129 February 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Mano Dutt and Ram Narain for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court held that the accused had a pre‑planned common intention to assault and kill the deceased during a land‑dispute, and that the presence of fewer than five participants does not prec

ATTIQ-UR-REHMANversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 33629 February 1996Dismissed

Attiq‑ur‑Rehman filed a civil suit to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from demolishing alleged unauthorised construction on his property. The corporation later lodged a criminal complaint under sections 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, even though

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusBALBIR SINGH

1996 INSC 33329 February 1996Dismissed

The respondents filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the appellants forged an agreement and signatures to claim possession of property, invoking offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on 27 September 1983. The appellants later filed a civil s

MAHABIR & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 12029 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted of murder by the Sessions Court in 2005, but a criminal revision filed by the victim's father in 2006 was allowed by the High Court, which reversed the acquittal and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could convert an acquittal

AJAY MALIKversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2025 INSC 11829 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from FIR No. 60/2017 alleging wrongful confinement, trafficking and conspiracy against Ajay Malik for employing a tribal domestic worker. Malik sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and compounding of the offences, supported by a no‑objection affidavit from the complainant, while the State opposed

AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2024 INSC 6329 January 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. He claimed that the signature on the cheque was forged and sought a handwriting expert's comparison during trial, which the trial court rejected and

AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2021 INSC 4829 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were named in FIRs for several offences and an informant sought their summons under Section 319 of the CrPC. After the Sessions Judge initially rejected the application, the High Court allowed a revision, leading to an order summoning the appellants on 17‑08‑2019. The appellants failed to appear, resulti

SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 10629 January 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined two questions referred to a larger bench: whether an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be limited to a fixed period, and whether such bail terminates when the accused is summoned or when charges are framed. Relying on the Constitution Benc

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusDHARMENDRA RATHORE

2019 INSC 10629 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Gwalior issued an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, against Dharmendra Rathore for a period of one year. The respondent challenged the order, contending that only a District Magistrate (DM) could exercise the powers conferred by Section

DHARAM PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2016 INSC 11229 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's minor daughter was allegedly raped and, a few days later, his wife was murdered; the police investigation led to the acquittal of the accused in the rape case and a pending trial in the murder case. The appellant sought the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citin

VISHAL AGRAWAL & ANR.versusCHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

2014 INSC 6429 January 2014Dismissed

The appellants, consumers of electricity, were accused of theft of electricity and the State Electricity Board lodged a complaint that led to an FIR under Sections 135/126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offence, but the appellants challenged the jurisdiction, arguing that an Assi

SATNI BAIversusSTATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

2010 INSC 6729 January 2010Dismissed

Satni Bai was convicted of murdering her four‑year‑old son under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: witnesses (her brother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and a 16‑year‑old girl) saw her standing near the corpse with a blood‑stained axe, the axe and her saree were found blood‑stained, and the pos

GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2008 INSC 11229 January 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two murder cases in which the accused, Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja, had been granted regular bail by the Gujarat High Court on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody, non‑commencement of trial and prior compliance with temporary bail conditions. The State of Gujarat contended that the High C

SUDESH KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2008 INSC 11329 January 2008Dismissed

Sudesh Kumar was convicted under IPC s.392 r/w s.34 and the Arms Act for a robbery committed on 7 March 1981 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, claiming benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, asserting that he was under 21 years of age at the time of the offence b

SOM MITTALversusGOVT. OF KARNATAKA

2008 INSC 11729 January 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a Managing Director of a company, was charged under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 after a woman employee was raped and killed while travelling to work. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the complaint, claiming exempti

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusKISHAN LAL AND OTHERS

1991 INSC 1729 January 1991Disposed off

The respondents were arrested for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and were denied bail, leading them to file writ and criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on grounds of delayed charge‑sheet and illness. The D

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusDEWADAS & ORS.

1982 INSC 1029 January 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought to appeal an acquittal under section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and filed an application for leave under section 378(3). By prevailing practice in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the leave application was listed before a Single Judge under Rule 1(q) of the High Court

VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 102628 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Vishnu Kumar Shukla and his wife, were charged under IPC sections 448, 454 and 380 for allegedly breaking into a shop and stealing goods. They contended that the complaint was frivolous, based on a forged tenancy agreement, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. The trial magistrate rejected their di

ABHISHEK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 108828 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Abhishek Saxena, was charged under IPC sections 323, 384 and 406 for alleged assault, extortion and criminal breach of trust arising from a FIR filed on 4 September 2016. He had earlier filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and a guardianship application under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, befo

NARAYAN MALHARI THORATversusVINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 111728 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant's son and daughter‑in‑law were teachers at a school where the first respondent, Vinayak Bhagat, repeatedly called and harassed the daughter‑in‑law. Despite the son’s attempts to stop the calls, an altercation occurred and the son later committed suicide, leaving a note blaming the respondent. An FIR under

CHHANNU LAL VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018 INSC 111228 November 2018Case Partly allowed

Chhanun Lal Verma was convicted of murdering three persons and attempting to murder others, and was sentenced to death and life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply the "rarest of rare" doctrine correctly, as the

ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 115528 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were originally charged under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506. Two years later, following a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the Commission directed the police to add an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, resulting in a supplementary charge‑

DOONGAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 115428 November 2017Directions issued

The case concerned the murder of Bhagwan Singh in Sikar, Rajasthan, where twenty accused were tried and nine were convicted. The Supreme Court noted that after the examination-in-chief of a key witness, the trial was adjourned for over four months, leading to several witnesses turning hostile. The Court held that under

RAM AUTAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2016 INSC 107028 November 2016Case Partly allowed

The incident arose when the deceased's cattle trespassed into the fields of the appellants, leading to a heated exchange. Later that day, while seated in adjacent compounds, an altercation escalated; the appellants, urged by others, fetched a gun and shot the deceased, who was also assaulted with lathis. The trial cour

SURESH &ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 81928 November 2014Disposed off

The appellants Suresh and others were convicted for kidnapping and murdering Devender Chopra and his son Abhishek, and for concealing evidence, under IPC sections 302, 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the recovery of the victims' bodies and belongings at the accu

MADHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 79428 November 2013Disposed off

The appellants Maohu @ Madhuranatha and others were convicted for the robbery‑murder of the son of PW‑22, based largely on circumstantial evidence, and were sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 364 IPC read with Section 34. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence alone can s

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 79528 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Shambhu Kewat and Banwari Kewat assaulted shopkeeper Abdul Rashid with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries and were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, receiving a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence. After the conviction, the victim and the accused reached a monetary settlem

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION FARIDKOTversusM/S SH. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS.

2011 INSC 82328 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC alleging a shortage of rice entrusted to the respondents. The trial court had earlier exempted the complainant from personal appearance, but later dismissed the complaint in default on the ground that the c

SONTI RAMA KRISHNAversusSONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANR.

2008 INSC 135828 November 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Sonti Rama Krishna, filed a complaint alleging that his son, Venkateswara Rao, had been insulted by his wife, Sonti Shanti Sree, after their arranged marriage, and that the insult drove the son to commit suicide. The police registered a case under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide, but the A

BHUVANESHWAR YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2008 INSC 135928 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a Patna High Court order that granted bail to two accused convicted of murder (IPC s.302) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27) without providing any reasons. The High Court had earlier rejected bail applications, later allowing the petitioners to renew the bail ple

STATE OF HARYANAversusSURJIT SINGH

2008 INSC 136028 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Surjit Singh, was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted under Section 13(2). The State of Haryana sought leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the application witho

SURENDRA PASWANversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2003 INSC 68028 November 2003Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC for shooting the deceased, based primarily on the testimony of three eyewitnesses. The defence argued that the prosecution failed to explain the minor injuries on the accused, did not submit the recovered bullet for chemical/ballistic examination, and

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.versusMD. KHALIQUE AND ANR.

2001 INSC 58428 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar filed an FIR alleging that six government revenue officers colluded with two private individuals to forge assessment orders under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1955, thereby misappropriating state funds. The FIR, registered under IPC sections 419, 420, 467 and 120B, named eight accused. The Patna High

SHAILENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 58328 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant alleged that his mother was murdered and the accused were charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 449 and 302 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge closed the prosecution evidence because the appellant did not request further examination of witnesses. After the case was transferred, a new Sessions Judge recalled t

DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (FERA)versusARUN KUMAR BAJORIA

1997 INSC 76828 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) raided Arun Kumar Bajoria's residence and issued summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Bajoria filed a writ petition challenging the summons and later obtained anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC from the City Sessions Court, with a conditio

"COMMON CAUSE", A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 140228 November 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court issued a clarificatory order modifying its earlier judgment (1 May 1996) in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986, which had provided for discharge or acquittal of accused whose criminal trials were pending for a prescribed period. The Court held that the relief does not apply where the pendency is cause

GURMIT KAURversusSURJIT SINGH @ JEET SINGH

1995 INSC 79828 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Gurmit Kaur, married in 1971, entered into a mutual consent divorce agreement with her husband Surjit Singh, who subsequently remarried. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance. The magistrate granted her Rs.200 per month and Rs.100 for her minor son; the Additiona

BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATIONversusNARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 80028 November 1995Dismissed

The respondent, an Assistant Godown Manager, misappropriated Rs. 2,61,859.30 in 1976. A departmental enquiry began in 1979 and prosecution was initially filed in 1985 without the mandatory sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, leading to his discharge. After obtaining the sanction in 1991,

SURESH H. RAJPUT ETC. ETC.versusBHARTIBEN PRAVIN BHAI SONI AND ORS. ETC.

1995 INSC 80128 November 1995Disposed off

A food inspector collected milk samples from the respondents' premises and, after a public analyst reported adulteration, the local health authority granted sanction under Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to prosecute. The sanction was issued as a cyclostyled order without detailed reasons. The trial m

TEKCHAND & ANR.versusTEKCHAND, SUPDT. OF POLICE & ORS.

1986 INSC 25228 November 1986Dismissed

The case concerned an incident that occurred on 2 April 1974, for which a First Information Report was filed suo motu by the police in November 1977, more than three years later, based on a Commission of Inquiry report. The victims of the alleged injuries were themselves produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 3 Apr

THWAHA FASALversusUNION OF INDIA

2021 INSC 68828 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for alleged offences under Sections 38, 39 and 13. The Court held that the charge‑sheet material did not show reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 were prima fac

SHYAM PALversusDAYAWATL BESOYA & ANR.

2016 INSC 100128 October 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted in two separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonoured cheques of Rs.5 lakh each, relating to two loans advanced by the same complainant on different dates but on identical terms. Both trials awarded ten months' simple imprisonment and a fine o

M/S. SHREE MAHAVIR CARBON LTD.versusOM PRAKASH JALAN (FINANCER) & ANR.

2013 INSC 72728 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420, 406, 468, 471 (also 419, 486) alleging cheating, siphoning of funds and falsification of accounts by Om Prakash Jalan and others. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The respondents moved the High Court under CrPC s.482

GURJANT SINGH @ JANTAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 72428 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Gurjant Singh (Janta) was seized with three gunny bags containing poppy husk while riding a tractor trolley. The police officer who stopped the vehicle offered the appellant the right to have the search conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the appe

SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 74928 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant husband and his mother‑in‑law were accused of dowry death after the bride, aged about 24, was found strangled and burnt in her matrimonial home within three years of marriage. The prosecution proved, on circumstantial evidence, that the accused repeatedly demanded a Maruti car as dowry, harassed the victi

ROMESH LAL JAINversusNAGINDER SINGH RANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 54028 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a FIR lodged by a Sub‑Inspector (the respondent) against M/s Jain Gas Agency under the Essential Commodities Act, which the appellant claimed was false and alleged that the officer had misappropriated gas cylinders and accepted a bribe. The Special Judge directed the investigating officer to obtain

BISHNA@ BHISWADEB MAHATO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005 INSC 54128 October 2005Disposed off

The case arose from a violent altercation over a disputed plot of land in Bhadsa village, where the accused, armed with various weapons, chased and assaulted the complainants, resulting in the death of Prankrishna Mahato and injuries to several others. The accused claimed private defence of property and person, arguing

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