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.

NEERAJ SHARMA
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 40
2024 INSC 6
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellants, inter alia, for offence u/s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Conditions to be met to make out offence u/s.364-A – Conviction of the appellants u/ ss.307/120B, 364-A Prosecution if proved its case u/s.364-A beyond reasonable doubt: Held: In the present case, the most important witness is the complainant himself-an injured witness, who was an 18 year old boy who trusted his friends (appellants), not aware that he was being taken by deceit by his friends
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1420/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly 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.

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHER
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 308
2024 INSC 284
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 308 : 2024 INSC 284 Vipin Sahni and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2024) 08 April 2024 [Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is open for High Court to convert or treat a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., as one 239 Cr.P.C. discharged the appellants – CBI approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside the discharge order and directed the learned Special Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case – Appellants preferred appeal against the said impugned order
 Decision Date :
 08-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980/2024
 | 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
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.

DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMA
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 218
2024 INSC 480
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery and
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2806/2024
 | 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.

BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 174
2024 INSC 320
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Headnotes Code of s.378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – Scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court: Held: It is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 985/2010
 | 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

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.

SHABNA ABDULLA
 versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 460
2024 INSC 612
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the detenue’s sister-in-law challenging the detention order as well as the confirmation of detention on the ground of non-supply and thus, sought release of the detenue, when the coordinate Bench of the same High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the co-accused persons challenging the same detention order holding that documents relied upon in the detention orders ought to have been furnished to the detenus
 Decision Date :
 20-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3082/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 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.

JAMES KUNJWAL
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 332
2024 INSC 601
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit and therefore a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. The question that falls for consideration is of the affidavit filed before the High Court, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Allegation of filing a false affidavit –
 Decision Date :
 13-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3350/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 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.

FRANK VITUS
 versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 97
2024 INSC 479
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two conditions imposed while granting bail. The two conditions are as follows: (i) A certificate of assurance from the is to be placed on record that the applicants/accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Judge as and when required; (ii) Accuse shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case.
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2814/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Listed for final orders

 |  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.

DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 559
2024 INSC 953
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration In the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Refusal to quash criminal proceedings, when not justified – FIR lodged by respondent No.2-wife against appellants under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and
 Decision Date :
 10-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5199/2024
 | 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.

RAJASEKAR
 versus
 STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 152
2024 INSC 96
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
 Issue for Consideration The appellant who was convicted for offence u/ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded the sentence of ten years RI alongwith a fine, the quantum of sentence awarded, if justified. Headnotes Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 3(a) Quantum of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss. 3(a)/4 and sentenced to ten years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to undergo SI for three months alongwith the compensation of Rs One Lakh to the victim by the courts below – In appeal before
 Decision Date :
 05-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 756/2024

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
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.

CHANDAN
 versus
THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 94
2024 INSC 271
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to effect of lack or absence of motive, when there is testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that accused stabbed the victim multiple times with the knife he was carrying, – Victim’s sister-in-law witnessed the incident from a short distance – Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by the courts below – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Blood of the deceased clearly matched with the blood found on the knife recovered from the accused,
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 788/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
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.

SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD.
 versus
PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1211
2024 INSC 551
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is the “drawer” and whether such signatory could be directed to pay interim compensation in terms of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 leaving The High Court answered the question in the negative. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 141, 143-A – Appellant company entered into several agreements with C Ltd. and made advance payments for supply of sugar – C failed to supply – In order to
 Decision Date :
 24-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3070/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SHYAM NARAYAN RAM
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726
2024 INSC 800
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses. Headnotes† Code of s.294 – The High Court while allowing the appeal filed by accused persons and remanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the genuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had dispensed with its formal
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4287/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

BABA NATARAJAN PRASAD
 versus
M. REVATHI
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 781
2024 INSC 523
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to accused Nos.1 and 2 by sentencing them to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, even after finding that they committed the serious offence of bigamy of sentence is called for. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing – Enhancement of – High Court after restoring conviction for the offence of bigamy punishable u/s. 494 IPC, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of
 Decision Date :
 15-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2912/2024
 | 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
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.

SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 778
2024 INSC 217
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants have been able to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in s. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the persons accused of the offence under the PMLA is not guilty of such is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 45 – Offence of money laundering – Conditions to be satified for grant of bail – Appellant-Minister in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi was the conceptualizer, initiator,
 Decision Date :
 18-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1638/2024
 | 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
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.

JADUNATH SINGH
 versus
ARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 561
2024 INSC 325
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the offenses including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita. The accused were convicted
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2170/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAH
 versus
TR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2248
2024 INSC 1059
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to imprisonment and to pay the cheque amounts as compensation, in each of the complaints. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds – Petitioners borrowed certain sum in five instalments as a hand loan from the
 Decision Date :
 01-10-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


PRASHANT
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 825
2024 INSC 879
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration Whether FIR u/ss.376(2)(n) and s.506 IPC lodged against the appellant should be quashed; whether allegations in the FIR are correct; whether relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) and s.506 – contact with each other in the year 2017 and after some time they got to know each other – Complainant alleged that in the year 2019 appellant had a forceful sexual relationship her – Further, it was alleged that appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual
 Decision Date :
 20-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4721/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
 versus
ABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278
2024 INSC 796
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010
 | 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

 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 PUNJAB
 versus
PARTAP SINGH VERKA
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 62
2024 INSC 483
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as sanction u/s. 19 of the P.C. Act was Act, 1988 – s. 19 – Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – On facts, the trial court summoned the respondent-public servant u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the P C Act – High Court set aside the order of the trial court as
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEER
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 498
2024 INSC 838
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Main 201 for murder of one lady during night, at the house of other accused – Other accused convicted and sentenced u/s. 201 – Prosecution case that motive for murder was illicit relation between the two accused – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court –
 Decision Date :
 05-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291/2023
 | 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

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.

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 813
2024 INSC 529
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Ten persons were arrayed as accused and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC alleging indiscriminate shooting and/or conspiracy leading to death of two persons and injury of one person. The case was committed Sessions against nine accused persons numbered as Sessions Trial No. 17/1995. Subsequently, the case against the proclaimed offender was committed and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. During the pendency of trial in 2007, one of the Accused, the 2nd Respondent herein was elected as Member
 Decision Date :
 15-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2914/2024
 | 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.

DR SONIA VERMA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 673
2024 INSC 227
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 673 : 2024 INSC 227 Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024) 07 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the High Court of Punjab & civil in nature. Headnotes Criminal Law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Inherent powers – Scope of exercise of power for quashing the criminal proceedings: Held: The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings when it was apprised of the
 Decision Date :
 07-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1433/2024
 | 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.

TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH
 versus
KAMAL DAYANI & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 235
2024 INSC 588
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court. However, of the said order, the petitioner was remanded to police custody during the currency of the aforesaid interim order. Present contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents-police officials and the ACJM. Respondents, if committed contempt of this Court’s order.
 Decision Date :
 07-08-2024
 | Case No :
 DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 1106/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Contempt petition listed for next date, SLPs disposed of

 |  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.

MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMI
 versus
THE STATE OF A.P.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 640
2024 INSC 503
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that the the appellant-Forest
 Decision Date :
 10-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2845/2024
 | 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
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.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 677
2024 INSC 58
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report u/s.173(2) against other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail u/s.167(2). Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.167(2), s.173
 Decision Date :
 24-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 391/2024
 | 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

मराठी - Marathi
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.

SOMNATH
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1014
2024 INSC 232
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who has committed excesses on individual in police custody? Headnotes Constitution of India – Article 142, 226 – Appellant verbally and physically assaulted in police custody – for 4 hours despite being granted bail – Sub- divisional Police Officer’s inquiry report found Respondent No. 2 responsible – Special Inspector General of Police imposed punishment of “strict warning” in departmental proceedings – High Court partly allowed
 Decision Date :
 18-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1717/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 64
2024 INSC 664
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal – Art. 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor – Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother – Arrest of father in connection with mother’s death, however later released on bail –
 Decision Date :
 06-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly 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.

RAGHUVEER SHARAN
 versus
DISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 361
2024 INSC 681
Coram : PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for Evidence Act, 1872 – s.132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – A criminal complaint was filed, the appellant was also examined as one of the witnesses of the respondent bank, wherein he admitted having changed the tenure of the Fixed Deposit from
 Decision Date :
 10-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2764/2024

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 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.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
 versus
NIRAJ TYAGI & ORS
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 311
2024 INSC 106
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Issue for Consideration Interim orders passed by the High Court staying the investigations of the FIRs and the Enforcement Directorate, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Powers of the High Court under – Banking financial institution sanctioned borrowers, however, the borrowers defaulted – Banking institution auctioned the property and sold the shares of the borrowers for the recovery of its dues – Registration of FIR by the borrowers against the Banking institution and its officers, and investigation by the Enforcement
 Decision Date :
 13-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843/2024

 |  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.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 versus
SHILPA JAIN & ORS.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 372
2024 INSC 278
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court is correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR filed against Respondents. Headnotes Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 482 – Whether High Court proceeded on false premise that the Suit Property State of Madhya Pradesh – Consequently proceeded to quash the FIR against Respondents: Held: The Trial Court categorically found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh while dismissing the Civil Suit – This finding was upheld by the High Court – The facts
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1565/2024
 | 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.

SANJAY KUNDU
 versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 442
2024 INSC 43
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email from complainant, addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court suo motu registered a Criminal Writ Petition pursuant The High Court directed that the petitioner herein, who is holding the post of DGP, and the SP, Kangra should be moved to any other post to ensure that a fair investigation takes place. The petitioner was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor was he heard before the above order was
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 550/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 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.

GAUTAM KUMAR DAS
 versus
NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 451
2024 INSC 610
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of custody of the minor child to the father, the only natural guardian. Headnotes† Custody – Claim of – Appellant-father, only surviving biological parent seeking custody of the minor daughter from the alleged unlawful custody wife just ten days after the birth of their daughter and thereafter, his father due to Covid-19 – Due to the loss, the father handed over the custody of his minor daughter to his sister-in-law as an interim arrangement, however, his son who was relatively older was with him –
 Decision Date :
 20-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3447/2024
 | 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
 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.

AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1083
2024 INSC 63
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque in question. His application for comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque through the handwriting expert was rejected by trial court. justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant u/s.391, CrPC for taking additional evidence at appellate stage and seeking a direction to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.118, 138 – Code of Criminal
 Decision Date :
 29-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 478/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 328
2024 INSC 294
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 324 – Murder – dangerous weapon or means – Right of private defence, if applicable – On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her – In the evening, the complainant informed her father
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2012
 | 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.

KALINGA @ KUSHAL
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 391
2024 INSC 124
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Issue for Consideration Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Headnotes Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Evidentiary value – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons –
 Decision Date :
 20-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622/2013

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
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.

KIRAN JYOT MAINI
 versus
ANISH PRAMOD PATEL
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 942
2024 INSC 530
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Long-standing separation between the parties, multiple prolonged litigations pending adjudication, several failed attempts at reconciliation. Issue was as regards interim maintenance however, in view of irretrievable break down of marriage, marriage between the in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under – Dissolution of marriage in view of its
 Decision Date :
 15-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915/2024
 | 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.

DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 670
2024 INSC 626
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in declining to quash and set aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, against the appellants- company and its office bearers, for offence punishable u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 and 120B of trust and cheating – Private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 in the court of Magistrate against the appellants for the offence punishable u/ss.406, 420 and 120B, alleging that certain amount was due and payable to him by the appellants towards the sale of horse grains and oats
 Decision Date :
 23-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3114/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES
 versus

-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 722
2024 INSC 866
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the executive should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure for infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a crime. In other words, whether properties of persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for for commission of criminal offences, can be demolished without following the due process of law. Headnotes† Demolition of property – Demolition of property of a person by the State machinery merely because he is an accused or a convict, that too without following due process
 Decision Date :
 13-11-2024
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 295/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.