English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MANIKANDAN
 versus
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 234
2024 INSC 272
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1609/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MARIAM FASIHUDDIN & ANR.
 versus
STATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 623
2024 INSC 49
Coram : SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Issue for Consideration The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima facie constitute the offence IPC; Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC; Whether there has been a violation of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; Whether in the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the
 Decision Date :
 22-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 335/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

GURWINDER SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 134
2024 INSC 92
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 alongwith other charges and the Arms Act. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 43D (5), 17, 18, 19 – Rejection of bail – On facts, charges u/ss. 17, 18, 19 of the UAP Act, u/ss. 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B IPC and u/ss. 25 and 54 of Arms Act against the appellant along with other
 Decision Date :
 07-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 704/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

NITYA NAND
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 37
2024 INSC 655
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in the crime or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 was convicted for the murder of his Uncle – Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly – Plea of the appellant that both the courts below erred in convicting him as the allegation against him was that he was carrying a country- made pistol, however, neither were there
 Decision Date :
 04-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAHUL KUMAR YADAV
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 501
2024 INSC 359
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 501 : 2024 INSC 359 Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018) 25 April 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Courts should be guided by object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of
 Decision Date :
 25-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177/2018

 | Direction Issue :
 Interim direction issued.  Matter to be relisted.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAVINDRA KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 722
2024 INSC 131
Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration There was a non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate was acquitted) in the verification form of the employment. The State cancelled the selection of the appellant. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant. Headnotes Service Law Selection – Non-disclosure of a criminal case in verification – Appellant applied for the post of constable – After submitting application, he was embroiled in a criminal case – He cleared exam – In the criminal case, appellant was acquitted – After being
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5902/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITED
 versus
M. JAGANATHUAN
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 322
2024 INSC 602
Coram : HIMA KOHLI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration In order to partly discharge the loan amount, a cheque was issued by the respondent-accused for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. However, the cheque was returned with the endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Whether a discrepancy apropos the rate of interest, whether it be sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the appellant-chitfund company. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 – The respondent- accused, being a subscriber of the appellant-chitfund company, borrowed loan amounts on several dates from appellant totaling Rs.
 Decision Date :
 13-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3369/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 834
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not. Headnotes† Procedure, 1973 – Second respondent- complainant filed second complaint dtd. 20.07.2011, after the dismissal of the protest petition and the acceptance of the negative Final Report in the first complaint dtd. 11.11.2010, on the same set of facts/allegations against the appellants and the
 Decision Date :
 05-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4451/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
 versus
KAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 624
2024 INSC 317
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR Pradesh for offences u/ss. 420/120B/34 IPC by the complainant against accused persons – Complainant’s case that accused refused to hand over the property despite full payment for the sale of the land/building made by complainant – Said property situated in Rajasthan as also
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2136/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 345
2024 INSC 590
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration As per the FIR (Exhibit-79) there were two eyewitnesses to the incident, PW-12-Police Constable and PW-11-the first informant who was deceased’s cousin brother. PW-12 claiming to be an eyewitness to the incident had reported at the police station with the crime any complaint of the incident. FIR was registered on the basis of the oral statement of PW-11. Testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, if was trustworthy and reliable. In view of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidences, whether the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2828/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAVINDER KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 397
2024 INSC 684
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration FIR under Section 23 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and a complaint under Section 28(1) was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons. The allegation was of indulging in the illegal activity of sex In the facts of the case, when there was no legal decision by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concerned
 Decision Date :
 12-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3747/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 365
2024 INSC 490
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the appellant accused-A1 and altered his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim – Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines of
 Decision Date :
 09-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2038/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 638
2024 INSC 125
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant moved
 Decision Date :
 20-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1056/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

GAURAV MAINI
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 333
2024 INSC 488
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the Investigating
 Decision Date :
 09-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 696/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PUNEET SABHARWAL
 versus
CBI
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 679
2024 INSC 221
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s. 13(1)(e) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption appellant-R owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant-P son of R has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions for quashing criminal proceedings. The question that arises for consideration is
 Decision Date :
 19-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1682/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RANJEET MITTAL
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 811
2024 INSC 766
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 306, 34, 302, 201 – Victim died after allegedly falling off from terrace – Trial court framed charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 for abetment to commit suicide – Charges if rightly quashed by High Court: Held: No – High Court erred
 Decision Date :
 03-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3680/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1072
2024 INSC 134
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration The Amicus submitted report dated 10.02.2024 indicating the directions that have been complied with by the parties in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil**. On basis of the said are issued for due compliance by the States/Union Territories/CBI and High Courts. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41A, 438, 440, 88, 170, 204, 209, 436A – Supreme Court Directions – Compliance of directions by the States, Union Territories and CBI
 Decision Date :
 13-02-2024
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2034/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

KIRPAL SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 707
2024 INSC 312
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. Headnotes Penal – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – She
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SHADAKSHARI
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 429
2024 INSC 42
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.
 Decision Date :
 17-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1687
2024 INSC 1055
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exercise
 Decision Date :
 07-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1358/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SHIV PRATAP SINGH RANA
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8
2024 INSC 481
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected. Headnotes† and s.506 – Prosecution case that appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and threatening to make public her photographs – Trial Court framed charges u/s.376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC – A criminal revision filed against the said order
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SHAJAN SKARIA
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1086
2024 INSC 625
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act; when can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(u) of the 1989 Act; whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act. Headnotes† Scheduled
 Decision Date :
 23-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2622/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PARTEEK BANSAL
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 74
2024 INSC 324
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the same set Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Abuse of process of law – Subsequent FIR in Udaipur, Rajasthan on the same set of allegations by the complainant after two weeks of lodging the first FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC in Hisar, Haryana was an abuse of process of law.
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2167/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


M.R. AJAYAN
 versus
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1448
2024 INSC 881
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – Locus
 Decision Date :
 20-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4887 of 2024 allowed. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7896 of 2023 dismissed.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

LALU YADAV
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 639
2024 INSC 782
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed
 Decision Date :
 16-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4222/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ABDUL JABBAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 162
2024 INSC 99
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC and imposition of three months imprisonment, as also conviction u/s. 325/34 IPC and imposition of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine which was modified to three months imprisonment the High Court. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Reduction of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 and u/s. 325/34 – Imposition of three months imprisonment and one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine respectively – High Court modified
 Decision Date :
 05-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 748/2024

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
 versus
B. RAMU
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 357
2024 INSC 114
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Issue for Consideration In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court whether justified in granting anticipatory bail in registered for the offences punishable u/ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Quantity of narcotic substance
 Decision Date :
 12-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 801/2024

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
 versus
RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 73
2024 INSC 11
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. Headnotes Unlawful Activities Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(4)
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 43/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 157
2024 INSC 172
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Act, 1989. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and
 Decision Date :
 05-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAM PRAKASH CHADHA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1155
2024 INSC 522
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Issue for Consideration In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings of the trial Court on the ground to proceed against on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218,
 Decision Date :
 15-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2395/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

THE STATE OF ODISHA
 versus
NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 56
2024 INSC 346
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents in an FIR filed alleging a widespread conspiracy involving forgery of documents to facilitate the illegal transfer of valuable government land to private entities. SDJM, Bhubaneshwar passed an order of cognizance and 34 IPC and issue of process against the Respondents. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order taking cognizance against the Respondents. Headnotes Quashing- Decision of High Court to quash the proceedings at preliminary stage, when the case is linked
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2270/2024

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MANDAKINI DIWAN AND ANR.
 versus
THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 86
2024 INSC 666
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to investigation as regards the suspicious death of the wife of senior judicial officer. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 136 – Investigation by independent agency – Death of the wife of senior judicial officer appellants-mother and the brother of the deceased that the death was suspicious and was not a case of simple suicide, and apprehended that the husband being a senior judicial officer had managed the post mortem in which the cause of death was shown to be suicide by hanging – Several
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3738/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

LEONARD XAVIER VALDARIS
 versus
JITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 400
2024 INSC 344
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA
 400 : 2024 INSC 344 Leonard Xavier Valdaris v. Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2198 of 2024) 22 April 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can disagree with an earlier order of a Single Judge based out of same set of facts and one trial – Subsequent order to be treated as order referring the matter to larger Bench of two judges for consideration Held: Single Judge of High Court upheld order passed by the Special Judge framing charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 –
 Decision Date :
 22-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2198/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

JALALUDDIN KHAN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 633
2024 INSC 604
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. Headnotes† Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception – – Applicability of: Held: The Court while deciding an application of bail falling under the provisions of Section 43D (5) is not required to conduct a mini- trial – Only a prima facie case has to be established – The Court has to examine the material forming a part of the
 Decision Date :
 13-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3173/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

DINESH GUPTA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 390
2024 INSC 32
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order. Headnotes Administration of Justice – of law – Forum shopping – Financial transactions between parties based in New Delhi – On the basis of complaint filed by respondent- complainant, FIR was registered in Gautam Budh Nagar against three companies, appellants-promoters of the companies and other accused persons
 Decision Date :
 11-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 54
2024 INSC 662
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application against the rejection of the discharge application moved by the appellant-Company. Headnotes† Companies Act, 1956 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Code 1973 – Immunity from the prosecution – Grant of – Allegations against the appellant-Company that it cleared its goods into the Indian Market on payment of Countervailing Duty-CVD on the invoice value of the concerned goods, rather than the payment of the CVD on the Maximum
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3216/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.