English

मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JAVED AHMAD HAJAM
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 317
2024 INSC 187
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant- group that consisted of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-Happy
 Decision Date :
 07-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 743
2024 INSC 24
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation, assailing the dated 10.08.2022, if maintainable; Government of State of Gujarat, if competent to pass the impugned orders of remission in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case; Order of remission passed by the State of Gujarat in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case, if in accordance with law; and the
 Decision Date :
 08-01-2024
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 491/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SONU CHOUDARY
 versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 786
2024 INSC 864
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction of the appellant u/ss.324 and 452 IPC is sustainable; and whether a restaurant can be said to be a place used for dwelling or for worship or for the custody of property for convicting a person u/s.452 IPC for committing offence of – ss.324 and 452 – Voluntarily causing hurt – House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Prosecution case that the appellant inflicted injuries with the blade on the thigh, shoulder and back of the owner of the restaurant, when the owner
 Decision Date :
 06-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3111/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
JAGAT RAM
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 533
2024 INSC 952
Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) –
 Decision Date :
 03-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4964/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RATNU YADAV
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 466
2024 INSC 487
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence –
 Decision Date :
 09-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DEVU G NAIR
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1273
2024 INSC 228
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, was correct in directing the ‘corpus’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist; what guidelines should be followed by courts corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Habeas Corpus petition filed in High Court on the ground that Corpus (also referred to as ‘X’) was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wished
 Decision Date :
 11-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1730/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

XXXX
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 309
2024 INSC 181
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for committing rape repeatedly for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the appellant refused to marry –
 Decision Date :
 06-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3431/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR
 versus
SHARMILA DAS & OTHERS
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 537
2024 INSC 342
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 537 : 2024 INSC 342 Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 2272 of 2024) 26 April 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is sufficient to make out prima facie case on the basis of allegations for summoning of the accused. case was made out – Sessions Court partly allowed the revision against the order of magistrate setting aside the order to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the respondent no.1 and for the offence punishable under section 420 read
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2272/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NENAVATH BUJJI ETC.
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1181
2024 INSC 239
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating lot of fear and panic in the minds Headnotes Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities
 Decision Date :
 21-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1738/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 364
2024 INSC 117
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Parties levelled counter-allegations against each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings Parties made allegations against each other of taking money for providing a job – Respondent no.6 filed FIR against the appellant – High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings – Correctness: Held: In the complaint made by
 Decision Date :
 19-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1007/2024

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES VERSUS
 versus

-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1047
2024 INSC 613
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration R.G. Kar Hospital trainee doctor alleged rape and murder case. Lack of institutional safety standards in health care establishments; systemic issues for healthcare across directions issued for formation of a National Task Force. Headnotes† R.G. Kar trainee doctor murder and alleged rape case – Lack of institutional safety norms for medical professionals (doctors, medical students undergoing compulsory rotating medical internship (CRMI) in the MBBS
 Decision Date :
 20-08-2024
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1146
2024 INSC 623
Coram : HIMA KOHLI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered u/s.120-B r/w. ss.409/420 ss.13(1)(d)/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants before this Court are M/s Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited (KECML) arrayed as accused No. 12 in the chargesheet and Chairman and Managing Director of Emta Coal Limited and former Managing Director of accused No. 12,
 Decision Date :
 23-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1659/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

GULSHAN BAJWA
 versus
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1151
2024 INSC 74
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Issue for Consideration High Court exercising suo motu contempt jurisdiction against the appellant for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the court, and for casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters, and thereafter, holding him guilty of criminal contempt calls for interference Headnotes Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant-practising advocate and former army personnel threatened lady counsel appearing for the opposite side after seeking adjournment in the matter, repeatedly disobeyed orders, repeatedly failed to appear before the court
 Decision Date :
 30-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577/2007
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KHURSHEED & ANR.
 versus
SHAQOOR
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 963
2024 INSC 764
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether by virtue of s.5(2)(a) upon publication of Notification u/s.4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, any pending civil suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by fraud and impersonation, stands abated and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such in terms of s.49 of Consolidation Act. Headnotes† U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 – s.5(2)(a) and s.49 – Respondent herein filed a civil suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed before the Civil Judge – Petitioner No.2 herein filed an application stating that suit
 Decision Date :
 10-09-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 26454/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHOMA KANTI SEN
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 270
2024 INSC 269
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018. The appellant assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court passed on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail. The that whether the offences under Part IV & VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleged to have been committed by the appellant, are prima facie true or not. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 153A, 505 (1b), 117 r/w. s.34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2595/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

P. SASIKUMAR
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 87
2024 INSC 474
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302/34 as well as u/ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC, in absence of test identification parade, where accused is a stranger to a witness and the trial court accepted the dock identification by Headnotes† Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance – Non- conduct of Test Identification Parade-TIP, effect on prosecution case – On facts, in a brutal murder of a teenager girl allegedly by the main accused and co-accused, conviction and sentence u/s.
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NAVAS @ MULANAVAS
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 913
2024 INSC 215
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/ ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the conviction, however the sentence of death was modified and for life with a direction that he shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years including the period already undergone with set off u/s.428, Cr.P.C. alone. What should be the appropriate sentence and whether the High Court was justified in adopting the Swamy Shraddananda v.
 Decision Date :
 18-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1215/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ATAMJIT SINGH
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179
2024 INSC 84
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the date of the issuance of the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of interference by the High Court in proceedings u/s.138 of the NI Act qua allegedly time barred
 Decision Date :
 22-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516/2024

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAVINDER KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 767
2024 INSC 211
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial court
 Decision Date :
 06-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RABBU @ SARVESH
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 37
2024 INSC 720
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.5(g)/6 – Appellant contended that the instant case
 Decision Date :
 12-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA
 versus
LALRINTLUANGA SAILO & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1314
2024 INSC 537
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to the mandate under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act, and without taking in view the quantity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Recording a finding mandated u/s.37 is sine qua non for granting bail to accused under the Act – High Court erred in granting bail to accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to
 Decision Date :
 16-07-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 16021/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ASHOK
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 335
2024 INSC 919
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of legal – ss.376, 302, 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape and murder of a ten year old girl – Victim’s cousin-witness to the incident, and narrated the same to the victim’s father – Dead body found hidden at the place of
 Decision Date :
 02-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
 versus
JAYEETA DAS
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 640
2024 INSC 313
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to the case suffer from any illegality or infirmity; whether the extension of remand by the Chief the period of 90 days was illegal. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – FIR registered u/ss. 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of IPC – I.O. filed an application for addition of charges u/ss. 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

S. VIJIKUMARI
 versus
MOWNESHWARACHARI C
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 45
2024 INSC 732
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent). Headnotes† Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.25 – Respondent filed an application u/s. 25 of the Act and sought setting by which his appellant-wife was granted Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation – Respondent also sought return of the maintenance amount paid on the ground of fraud: Held: The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act
 Decision Date :
 10-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3989/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

N. MANOGAR & ANR.
 versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 685
2024 INSC 130
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants as accused persons case u/ss. 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 216/319 – Discretionary powers under – Exercise of, by the High Court – Application by the complainant u/s. 216/319 seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants
 Decision Date :
 16-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 110
2024 INSC 668
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered in respect of alleged illegal excavation against the accused. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence – Registration of FIR in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal in leasehold areas of
 Decision Date :
 09-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2221/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S NEW WIN EXPORT & ANR.
 versus
A. SUBRAMANIAM
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1225
2024 INSC 535
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether in the instant case, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed by the Supreme Court as the parties had settled the dispute among themselves by entering into a settlement agreement. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Offence under – Compounding of – Settlement treated to be compounding of the offence: Held: Appellants and respondent-complainant had entered into a settlement agreement dated 27.01.2024 – It is clear that the parties have settled the dispute among themselves – As
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2948/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VISHWANATHA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 50
2024 INSC 482
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 50 : 2024 INSC 482 Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka by the Secretary, Home Department (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2012) 08 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale,JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court reversing the order of acquittal found the appellant along with co-accused it was the accused persons who were responsible for the death of PW-1 and PW-3’s mother. Headnotes† Evidence – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of – When fatal – As per the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused (now deceased) broke into the
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

A.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD.
 versus
NAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1476
2024 INSC 690
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, 1881 to compound the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite the non-consent of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 147 – Scope – Trial Court dismissed the application for compounding the offence u/s.138, N.I. Act filed u/s.320 Cr.P.C. – High Court despite the absence of the consent of the
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNU
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 929
2024 INSC 740
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case of
 Decision Date :
 22-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PARVINDER SINGH KHURANA
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 979
2024 INSC 546
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration The issue involved in these appeals concerns the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (3) of Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3059/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


XYZ
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 792
2024 INSC 869
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of settlement. Headnotes† Criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the – Advisable to procure presence of victim either personally or through video conferencing: Held: When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal
 Decision Date :
 05-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4463/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

SUDEEP CHATTERJEE
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 662
2024 INSC 567
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused- bail: Held: Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Conditions should be put warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to
 Decision Date :
 02-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3210/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARI
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1054
2024 INSC 534
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Serious charges no ground to deny bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – SS.16, 43D – Penal Code, 1860 – SS. 489B, 489C – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from
 Decision Date :
 18-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2790/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MANISH SISODIA
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1061
2024 INSC 595
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The claim of applying the triple test contemplated under Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Whether the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA. Whether the
 Decision Date :
 09-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3295/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NARESH KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 830
2024 INSC 149
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman appellant u/s.306, IPC – Correctness: Held: In order to convict a person u/s.306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence – Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide – It also requires an active act or
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1722/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.