Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

20 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

BALKISHAN A. DEVIDAYAL ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

1980 INSC 14431 July 1980Dismissed

The appellant was charged under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 for allegedly possessing railway property obtained through forged receipts. An RPF inspector recorded his statements during an inquiry, but the trial magistrate denied the appellant access to copies of documents and statements, leading

M/S. PUSHPA SAHAKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD.versusM/S. GANGOTRI SAHAKARI AVAS S. LTD. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 15330 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

In a suit for permanent injunction, the parties entered into a compromise decree dated 06‑09‑1996 requiring the defendant to pay a sum within six months. The defendant failed to pay, and the decree-holder filed an execution petition on 17‑02‑1997, before the six‑month period had expired. The defendant objected under Se

B. SAHA AND ORS.versusM. S. KOCHAR

1979 INSC 12727 July 1979Dismissed

The appellants, customs officers, were accused of dishonest misappropriation of goods they had seized and were holding in trust. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate found a prima facie case under Sections 120B and 409 IPC and summoned the appellants, who sought discharge on the ground that prosecution required prior sanction

STATE THROUGH S.P., NEW DELHIversusRATAN LAL ARORA

2004 INSC 31026 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former commercial superintendent of the Delhi Vidyut Board, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500. The trial court sentenced him to 20 months and 40 months of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines, an

SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1980 INSC 5326 March 1980Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Banerjee, an IAS officer, was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal acted as the Enquiry Officer and recommended reduction in rank. The appellant challenge

ROSHAN SINGH & ORS.versusZILE SINGH & ORS.

1988 INSC 5424 February 1988Dismissed

The case involved descendants of a common ancestor who had partitioned their agricultural land in 1955 and later their residential properties. A memorandum of partition (Exh. P‑12) dated 3 August 1955, later confirmed by a settlement (Exh. P‑1) on 31 January 1971, listed the properties allotted to each party. The dispu

MOHD. AHMED KHANversusSHAH BANO BEGUM AND ORS.

1985 INSC 9723 April 1985Dismissed

The appellant, a Muslim advocate, divorced his wife Shah Bano Begum by irrevocable talaq and argued that under Muslim Personal Law he owed no further maintenance beyond the iddat period, having paid dower (mahr). The wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance, w

LEHNAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2002 INSC 3922 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Lehna was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC), attempt to murder (Sec. 324 IPC) and assault (Sec. 458 IPC) for killing his mother, brother and sister‑in‑law and injuring his father and nephew during a family land dispute. The trial court sentenced him to death, which the High Court confirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Cour

SAT PAL @ SADHUversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

1992 INSC 21019 August 1992Dismissed

Sat Pal alias Sadhu, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1978, filed a writ petition claiming his continued detention was illegal because he had served more than 14 years (including remission) and thus his sentence should be deemed commuted under Section 55 of the IPC or Section 433(b)

MST. ZOHARA KHATOONversusMOHD. IBRAHIM

1981 INSC 3918 February 1981Appeal(s) allowed

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

ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD.versusKESHVANAND

1997 INSC 81916 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Associated Cement Company Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Kesvanand. The magistrate examined the company’s authorized representative, Puneet Aggarwal, on oath, but on two consecutive dates the representative was absent and the magistrate acquitted the accused under Sec

MD. MUNNAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 42216 September 2005Dismissed

The petitioner Md. Munna, convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that having served more than 21 years he should be released, contending that life imprisonment is equivalent to a term of 20 years under the West Bengal

DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHYversusBIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANR.

1999 INSC 48114 October 1999Dismissed

The husband, D.P. Satpathy, claimed that his marriage to B.P. Dixit was performed under duress and therefore invalid, and also denied paternity of the child born shortly after the ceremony. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance for herself and the child, which wa

RAJDEEP SARDESAIversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2015 INSC 41514 May 2015Dismissed

The appellants, a group of journalists and media houses, were charged with defamation for publishing a news item that alleged the Additional Commissioner of Police, Rajiv Trivedi, facilitated the Sohrabuddin encounter. The second respondent obtained a previous sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure

PRAVAT CHANDRA MOHANTYversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA & ANR.

2021 INSC 8011 February 2021Case Partly allowed

Two police officers, the in‑charge of Purighat Police Station and a senior inspector, mercilessly beat Kasinath Naik in the police station premises on 4‑5 May 1985, causing injuries that led to his death that night. The trial court convicted them under Sections 304(Part II), 324, 342, 323, 471 and related provisions; t

STATE OF PUNJABversusRAJ KUMAR

1988 INSC 4011 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Assistant Sub‑Inspector, was caught taking a bribe and was investigated and charge‑sheeted in a criminal trial. He challenged the framing of charges on the ground that the investigation violated Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules. The High Court held the rule to be mandatory and applicable to crim

N. MADHAVANversusSTATE OF KERALA

1979 INSC 1447 August 1979Appeal(s) allowed

N. Madhavan was charged under Section 302 IPC for killing a person with his licensed 12‑bore gun. He successfully pleaded self‑defence, invoking Section 96 IPC, and the Sessions Judge acquitted him. However, the judge ordered the gun to be confiscated to the Government without giving any reasons or hearing the accused.

TANVIBEN PANKAJ KUMAR DIVETIAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1997 INSC 4856 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of her mother‑in‑law, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The conviction was upheld by a third judge of the Gujarat High Court after a division bench was split, and the appellant appealed to

SAJJAN SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1998 INSC 3402 September 1998Dismissed

The appellants were convicted of murder under Sections 302/149 IPC for the killing of Munnabhai, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench was split on the convictions of seven of them. The matter was referred to a third judge under Section 392 of the CrPC, who refused to revisit the convictions of three appella

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