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.

MITESH KUMAR J. SHA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 875
2021 INSC 675
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Complaint by respondent no.2 against appellant alleging that the appellant-builder company had sold four excess flats beyond its share, in terms of the agreements entered into between them – Appellant filed s.482 application before High – Hence instant appeal – Held: The facts did not show that appellants deceptively or intentionally tried to sell excess flats as contended by respondent No. 2 – Although, there is no doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil
 Decision Date :
 26-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1285/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

UNION OF INDIA
 versus
K. A. NAJEEB
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 443
2021 INSC 50
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Bail: Grant of bail – By High Court – To the accused charged for offences u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307 and 149 IPC; u/s. 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that the undertrial- accused could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in near future – By setting aside the order of Special Court who had declined to grant bail to the accused primarily in view of the bar against grant of bail u/s. 43-D(5) of
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 98/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 versus
ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 158
2021 INSC 252
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 7 – Offence relating to public servant being bribed – On facts, filing of chargesheet against the accused for the offence u/s. 7 – Special Judge on basis of the transcript of conversation recorded between the complainant and there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence u/s. 7, and framed the charges against the accused for the said offence – Revision Application thereagainst – High Court discharged the accused of the alleged offence u/s. 7 – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable
 Decision Date :
 13-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAMGOPAL & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 249
2021 INSC 568
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT
 v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 [N. V. RAMANA, CJI AND SURYA KANT, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482 and 320 – Quashing of criminal prosecution – On basis of compromise/ settlement between the parties – an offence within the framework of s.320 CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it u/s.482 CrPC – As opposed to s.320 CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences
 Decision Date :
 29-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1489/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA)
 versus
C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1061
2021 INSC 380
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s. 7 – Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor – Petition u/s. 7, if barred by limitation – On facts, appellant Bank sanctioned term loan and letter of credit cum buyer’s credit in favour of corporate corporate debtor defaulted in repayment of its dues to the bank and loan amount declared as non-performing asset-NPA –Issuance of notice to corporate debtor in 2014, to clear its dues – Pursuant thereto, in 2015 Bank filed application for recovery of the outstanding dues – In
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1650/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAVINDRANATHA BAJPE
 versus
MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 268
2021 INSC 555
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Criminal Law – Vicarious liability – Allegation that the accused-respondents with the common intention of laying pipeline beneath the properties belonging to the complainant, committed criminal trespass into the properties and also cut and destroyed about 100 trees – Magistrate issued process against respondents-accused nos.1 to 8 for offences punishable u/ss.427, 447, 506 and 120B r/w s.34 IPC – Sessions Court set aside the order of Magistrate – High Court confirmed the order of Sessions Court
 Decision Date :
 27-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1047/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 237
2021 INSC 764
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860: s 302 rw s. 149 – Dispute between the parties over the pathway, an order of stay obtained by the prime accused and consequential panchayat also held on the date of occurrence – Prime accused along with his son and 25 others got into the land of the victim and other weapons – Death of two and injuries to others – Complaint filed by eye-witness – Acquittal of two while conviction of five of them – Acquittal of one more accused by the High Court while upholding the conviction of the other four, and ordered for further investigation
 Decision Date :
 22-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 753/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Allowing the appeals by the accused and dismissing the appeals by the complainant, the Court

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

DHARMESH @ DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1
2021 INSC 323
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HEMANT GUPTA
 Bail: Imposition of condition for bail – Free fight between two groups in Amreli resulting in death of two persons – Case against 13 persons – Appellants, arrayed as accused no.12 and 13, were arrested – By impugned order, they were However, they were aggrieved by the condition imposed on them for bail requiring them to deposit Rs.2 lakhs before the trial court as compensation to victims – Held: In cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be a methodology for redemption – Similarly, to
 Decision Date :
 07-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 432/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 469
2021 INSC 890
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Death of married woman – Matrimonial disputes – Bald allegations against family members of husband – Complaint filed by 2nd respondent, father of the deceased married woman, alleging that husband and in-laws of the intention beat her, killed her by putting a noose around her neck and hanged her – Case registered against all the named accused including first appellant (brother-in-law of the deceased) and second appellant (mother-in-law of the deceased) for alleged offences u/ss.498-A, 323, 504, 506,
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1628/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

 MS. X
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 156
2021 INSC 31
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, M.R. SHAH, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Crime Against Women: Rape victim – Rehabilitation of – Writ petition u/Art. 32 – By the victim – Seeking rehabilitation – Alleging that many people raped her for which criminal proceedings were initiated – She, with her three children has no means not able to give education to her children – Her identity has been disclosed by media as a rape victim – The administration, media and society has been alleged to compel her to lead a life with no security, no job and no shelter – Held: The petitioner is a rape victim and hence
 Decision Date :
 20-01-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1352/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF KERALA
 versus
K. AJITH & ORS.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 774
2021 INSC 366
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 321 – Withdrawal of prosecution – Respondents-MLAs allegedly disrupted the presentation of the budget by climbing on to the dais of the Speaker and damaging furniture and articles causing huge loss – Registration the behest of the Legislative Secretary u/ss. 447 and 427 r/w s. 34 IPC and s. 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Cognizance taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate-CJM upon submission of the final report u/s 173 CrPC – Application u/s 321 by the public
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 697/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MANJEET SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 855
2021 INSC 419
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of additional accused – An FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the original complainant regarding death of his son and injuries suffered by his nephew-appellant – As per his statement his son and his ‘S’ and four accused persons/private respondents armed with weapons while they were on their way back home after purchasing the pesticides meant for paddy in their car – There was indiscriminate firing from ‘S’ which led to death of his son and his nephew was injured
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 875/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 191
2021 INSC 48
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, M.R. SHAH, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 319 – Application under – Appellants summoned by order dated 17.8.2019 – As the appellants did not appear before the Court, bailable warrant issued on 5.9.2019 and non-bailable warrant issued on 18.9.2019 issuing notice u/s. 446 Cr. P.C. against order dated 17.8.2019 – High Court dismissed the Revision on the ground that there was concealment of fact as order dated 18.9.2019 was not placed on record – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Power u/s. 319 is extra-ordinary and discretionary and has to be exercised
 Decision Date :
 29-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 88/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHIMA RAZU PRASAD
 versus
STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1020
2021 INSC 180
Coram : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
*
, VINEET SARAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) – A case was registered against the appellant/accused no.1 471 of IPC and s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Thereafter, the respondent- investigative agency conducted search at the appellant’s residence and found an amount of Rs.79,65,900/-, in addition to jewellery and property papers – Assets were found disproportionate to the
 Decision Date :
 12-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 305/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARIRAM BHAMBHI
 versus
SC/ST
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 855
2021 INSC 701
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: ss.15A(3) and 15A(5) – Rights of victims – Notice under s.15A not issued to victim/ dependents while hearing bail application of accused – Effect of – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (5) of s.15A specifically make the victim or stakeholder in the criminal proceedings – These provisions enable a member of the marginalized caste to effectively pursue a case and counteract the effects of defective investigations – Sub-section (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the
 Decision Date :
 29-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1278/1989
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY
 versus
KAVITHA MAHESH
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 297
2021 INSC 374
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Election Laws: Representation of People’s Act, 1951 – s. 100(1)(c) – Improper rejection of nomination paper – Returning officer giving false evidence before the Court – Effect of – On facts, the High Court held the election of the appellant from the Legislative and in the course of the said order issued direction to the Registrar General of the High Court to register a complaint u/s. 193 IPC against the Returning Officer for the said election, for giving false evidence before the Court – On appeal, held: Mere reference to inconsistent
 Decision Date :
 03-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4821/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
 versus
RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 850
2021 INSC 346
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grant of interim protection, challenged – Petitioner filed pre-election writ petition against the proposed elections and when failed to get writ petition and also criminal complaints – Respondent no.1 to 3 filed petitions for quashing the criminal complaints – Pending disposal of criminal complaints, respondent no.1 to 3 were granted interim stay of all further proceedings including their arrest before the High
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 3869/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRAKASH GUPTA
 versus
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 862
2021 INSC 353
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: ss. 24 and 24A – Compounding of offence under – On facts, allegations against appellant-director of a company of price rigging and insider trading in the scrip of the Company appellant u/s. 24(1) – Appellant sought the compounding of the offence u/s. 24A – Rejection of, by the trial judge upholding the objection of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that the offence could not be compounded without its consent – Upheld by the High Court
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 569/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MLA FROM MAU DISTRICT, UP
 versus
JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) & ORS.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 863
2021 INSC 223
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Constitution of India/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Art. 32/s.406 – Petition u/Art. 32 read with s. 406 – Maintainability of – On facts, various criminal cases filed against sitting MLA from Mau District, UP – Ten criminal cases pending trial against him, transferred lodged in District Jail, Banda, UP, pursuant to order of Special Judge – Meanwhile case registered against accused in District Mohali, Punjab u/ss. 386 and 506 IPC – Pursuant to the issuance of production warrant, Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, UP, without permission from the
 Decision Date :
 26-03-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 409/2020

 | Direction Issue :
 Writ Petition partly allowed and Transfer Petitions dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 264
2021 INSC 38
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, NAVIN SINHA, K.M. JOSEPH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail application rejected by Session Judge applying the provisions of s.37 of the NDPS Act 1985and stating that as a total seizure ‘from all accused’ was 12 gms cocaine, 55 gm Ganja, 11.5 gms ecstasy MDMA, no bail could be given to the appellant in present case – High Court also rejected bail – On appeal, held: The residence of the appellant was searched pursuant to statement made by one ‘BKR’ – Pursuant to search made of the appellant’s premises, no drugs
 Decision Date :
 21-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 62/2021

 | Direction Issue :
  Matters and appeals disposed of.

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PHOOL SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 317
2021 INSC 812
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Rape – Prosecution case that when the husband of the victim/prosecutrix was in another village and she was alone and sleeping in her room, the accused jumped the wall, entered into the room of the prosecutrix and raped her – As per the case of the but they did not believe her – On the contrary, she was beaten – Thereafter, she was compelled to go to her parental house – FIR was registered – The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence u/s. 376 IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo 7 years
 Decision Date :
 01-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1520/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MOHAN @SRINIVAS @SEENA @TAILOR SEENA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 451
2021 INSC 879
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.378, 384 – Appeal against acquittal – Murder of police officer – Appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Most of the witnesses turned hostile the sterling witness of the prosecution had an axe to grind against the accused who had given a complaint against him – It is too strange that he could be a chance witness – Many contradictions in statements made by PW-1 and PW-2-Duty constable – Alleged occurrence was said
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1420/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SATPAL
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 493
2021 INSC 143
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Indian Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Prosecution under – Death caused by husband of wife by setting her ablaze – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Conviction by courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The dying declaration is natural and the same is of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1 On coming to know that the deceased was admitted to hospital with the burn injuries, as informed by the police, the ASI went to the hospital along with other police officials. When it
 Decision Date :
 03-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 261/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 87
2021 INSC 458
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Bail – Murder case – Conviction of accused-private respondents a/w life sentence – Appeals – Grant of bail by High Court during pendency of the appeals – Challenged by widow of the deceased – Held: Impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court releasing the clarity on which part of the judgment/order can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be the findings/ reasonings – It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor – Detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State opposing the
 Decision Date :
 07-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 876/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (IPC) MP POWER TRADING CO LTD & ANR.
 versus
NARMADA EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 430
2021 INSC 204
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA
 Arbitration: Appointment of arbitrator – Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) in 1999 with the respondent – PPA was terminated in 2001 the writ petition filed by respondent in view of arbitration clause contained in the PPA – In 2011, respondent issued notice to the Board invoking arbitration as contained in the PPA – As no reply was received, respondent filed application under s.11(6) of AC Act seeking appointment
 Decision Date :
 23-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1051/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

G H KHOKAN @ KHOKHAN VISHWAS
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 534
2021 INSC 79
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Conviction of appellant u/s.302 – Prosecution case was that on the fateful evening when the victim- deceased was in the house of his neighbour, appellant had conversation with him regarding money – with him and pushed him down and stood up on his abdomen and crushed – Next day, in the evening when deceased had severe pain in abdomen, he was admitted in hospital for treatment and on the same night he was referred to another hospital – After two days, he died due to septicemia
 Decision Date :
 11-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 121/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CHARANSINGH
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 704
2021 INSC 207
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Preliminary enquiry – Corruption case – A complaint was received against the appellant in the office of the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau, Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 7.2.2018, against the appellant and his brothers with regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income – At that time the appellant was a Member and President of Municipal Council – In connection with the said complaint, Police Inspector, Anti-corruption
 Decision Date :
 24-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 363/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SRI SAI RR INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY
 versus
DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 535
2021 INSC 319
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, K.M. JOSEPH, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Education/Educational Institutions: Pharmacy college – Writ petitions seeking directions to respondent no.1-University to comply with Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the State Government and grant conditional affiliation to the direction to University to organize special examinations for B.Pharma students for academic year 2020-2021 and to permit students of the petitioner-colleges to participate in the special examinations – Held: The facts of both the writ petitions are almost similar to facts in
 Decision Date :
 06-07-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 446/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

GUMANSINH @ LALO @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 24
2021 INSC 443
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A and 306 – Married woman committed suicide in her matrimonial home within 8 months of marriage, purportedly, by consuming pesticide – Conviction of appellants (husband and mother-in-law) by Courts – Challenge to – Held: Prosecution proved that deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- and such harassment was on account of her failure to bring said amount from her father (PW-1) who was financially incapable to meet such demand –
 Decision Date :
 03-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 940/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHAIK AHMED
 versus
STATE OF TELANGANA
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 462
2021 INSC 308
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Penal Code, 1860: s.364A – Essential ingredients – For covering an offence under s.364A, apart from fulfillment of first condition i.e. “whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction”, the second condition, i.e., or hurt to such person” also needs to be proved in situation the case is not covered by subsequent clauses joined by “or”. Penal Code, 1860: s.364A – Prosecution case was that accused kidnapped 13 years old school boy (PW-2) and telephoned to his father (PW-1)
 Decision Date :
 28-06-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 533/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PATAN JAMAL VALI
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 470
2021 INSC 272
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 376 – Offence of rape – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman in her own house – Appellant known to the victim and her family – Mother and her sons found the victim in nude condition, bleeding from apprehended when trying to escape – Conviction of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act and s. 376(1) by courts below – Imposition of life imprisonment for each of the offences, which were to run concurrently – On appeal, held: Nature and
 Decision Date :
 27-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 452/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SARANYA
 versus
BHARATHI AND ANOTHER
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 513
2021 INSC 416
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Exercise of power under – Stage of framing of charge – High Court quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings qua co-accused-respondent no. 1 for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 IPC – Correctness of – Held: High Court on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not – At this stage, while considering the application u/s.482 Cr.P.C., this is not at all permissible – High Court was not conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 873/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

K.S. RANGANATHA
 versus
VITTAL SHETTY
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 652
2021 INSC 837
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Dishonour of cheque – Appellant acquitted by trial court – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent successfully discharged the initial burden cast on him – He established signed by the appellant was issued in his favour towards discharge of a legally recoverable amount – Parties were known to each other – Appellant admitted about an earlier transaction where he had borrowed the amount and repaid – This indicates that the parties had entered into
 Decision Date :
 08-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1860/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VINOD KUMAR
 versus
AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 954
2021 INSC 802
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Penal Code, 1860: s.300 thirdly – Prosecution case was that respondent 1 to 5-accused were guilty of killing victim-deceased – Trial court convicted respondents-accused inter alia for offence punishable u/ss.302/149 – High Court altered conviction u/s.302 to one u/s.304 Part injuries caused to deceased were on non-vital parts of the body and, therefore, there was no intention on part of accused to kill the deceased – High Court further observed that the accused took deceased to a doctor which showed that there was no intention on their part to kill the
 Decision Date :
 30-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1519/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KANCHAN SHARMA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 194
2021 INSC 496
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Deceased (brother of complainant) went to the house of appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he carried in his pocket – Proceedings against appellant u/s.306, IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act – High of appellant u/s.482, CrPC – On appeal, held: Merely because deceased consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased – Absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the
 Decision Date :
 17-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1022/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.