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.

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 658
2023 INSC 745
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The role of a ‘support person’ as envisaged in the Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020. Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020 – Role of HELD: A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child – This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings
 Decision Date :
 18-08-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 427/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JUHRU & ORS
 versus
KARIM & ANR.
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 519
2023 INSC 148
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Additional accused – Summoning of –Appeal filed by the father-in- law(appellant no.1), sister-in-law(appellant no.2), and brother-in- law(appellant no.3) of the deceased against the High Court judgment wherein the High Court accused – Earlier, respondent no. 1 (brother of the deceased woman) had filed an FIR u/s 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC against the husband of the deceased, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the abovementioned appellants – The investigating agency did not find any
 Decision Date :
 21-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SATBIR SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 723
2023 INSC 786
Coram : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Courts below, if justifi ed in rejecting the application of the appellant u/s.311, CrPC for his recall as a witness in the trial for further examination. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power under – Exercise of – Appellant fi accused-ex-employees of his company had stolen company data and used it to manufacture equipment, which was manufactured by his company – Evidence of the appellant was recorded before the CFSL Report came – Though, the CFSL expert in his examination described the data found on the
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2634/2023
 | 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
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.

VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMA
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 108
2024 INSC 735
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction and
 Decision Date :
 25-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015
 | 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.

NARESH KUMAR & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 740
2024 INSC 196
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Refusal by High Court to quash criminal proceedings against Appellants/Accused arising out of a civil transaction between Appellants and Respondent No.2, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Powers of the High Court under filed by Respondent No.2 against Appellants – Appellants, employees of a bicycle manufacturing company engaged Respondent No.2 for assembling, transporting and delivering bicycles – Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the fact of payment not being commensurate with the service rendered - FIR
 Decision Date :
 12-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1510/2024
 | 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.

SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 421
2024 INSC 202
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for anticipatory bail was filed in November 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which it was dismissed – Meanwhile, proclamation was issued u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process u/s.83 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 15.03.2023 – The core
 Decision Date :
 14-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DABLU KUJUR
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 614
2024 INSC 197
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 614 : 2024 INSC 197 Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024) 12 March 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was the compliance of the requirements of a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of 1973: Held: The Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. being a very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as
 Decision Date :
 12-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511/2024
 | 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.

BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF
 versus
ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 859
2024 INSC 445
Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration The interlocutory applications have been filed seeking direction for payment of rent and other associated benefits in connection with the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. Headnotes† Rent Control and Eviction – The lis governs four different tenancies – Petitioner-applicant landlord alleges non-payment of rent and has filed applications in the pending SLPs seeking direction for payment of ‘monthly occupational charges’ following the prevalent market rate: Held: On account of
 Decision Date :
 17-05-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4049/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 IA disposed

 |  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.

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHI
 versus
OWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1056
2024 INSC 447
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration Applicability of Section 196-A of Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 vis-à-vis the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.103 – Code of Criminal ss.4(1)(e), 196-A – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 – Para 2(13) – Proceedings initiated under CrPC, 1989,
 Decision Date :
 17-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668/2024
 | 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.

SUNITA DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 629
2024 INSC 448
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 Issue for Consideration Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself. Conviction and death by the High Court and a de novo trial was ordered, making certain observations against the Special Judge. Criminal Appeal Nos.3925-3927 of 2023 filed by the judicial officer. Criminal Appeal No.3924 of 2023 filed by the informant against the order of remittal for de novo trial. On facts, in
 Decision Date :
 17-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3924/2023
 | 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.

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCH
 versus
BARAKATHULLAH ETC.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011
2024 INSC 452
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Issue for Consideration The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, released the respondents on bail subject to the conditions. Whether from the perusal of the chargesheet and other material/documents produced against the respondents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, as contemplated in
 Decision Date :
 22-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2715/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 62
2024 INSC 737
Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Issue for Consideration FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vague
 Decision Date :
 25-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4003/2024
 | 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.

K. VADIVEL
 versus
K. SHANTHI & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 746
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further investigation – Applications filed by the investigation or re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024
 | 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.

V. SENTHIL BALAJI
 versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 393
2024 INSC 739
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – Bail
 Decision Date :
 26-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4011/2024
 | 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.

AJWAR
 versus
WASEEM AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 575
2024 INSC 438
Coram : HIMA KOHLI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification: Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers
 Decision Date :
 17-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639/2024
 | 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.

TARSEM LAL
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 864
2024 INSC 434
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on the Court should issue a summons to the accused or warrant; (c) After a summons are issued u/s. 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if accused appears before the Special Court, would he be treated as in custody and is it necessary for
 Decision Date :
 16-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2608/2024
 | 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.

PRABIR PURKAYASTHA
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 666
2024 INSC 414
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused- appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest in writing. Headnotes – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – Appellant
 Decision Date :
 15-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2577/2024
 | 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.

RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHE
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 740
2024 INSC 422
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010, the High Court relied upon the written dying declaration of the deceased Ex. 59 recorded by PW-6 and also the oral dying declarations of the deceased made before PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 and thereafter upheld the judgment trial court. The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Whether the dying declaration (Ex.59), in the instant case, was the valid piece of evidence. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) –
 Decision Date :
 15-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2281/2011
 | 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.

MANIK & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 724
2024 INSC 734
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
*
 Issue for Consideration Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 218, all r/w. s.34 – Victim-S was taken into police custody for interrogation – Allegation that he was subjected to third degree torture – Thereafter, a burnt and buried body was found in the forest – Body was unidentified – Prosecution case that appellants-convicts
 Decision Date :
 25-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1614/2012

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

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

K. RAVI
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 700
2024 INSC 642
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge framed which would be an interlocutory order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, in
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2024
 | 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.

PARVEEN KUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 54
2024 INSC 717
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage –
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1321
2024 INSC 899
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for conclusion of trials. Headnotes† Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and Appellant incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail: Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years – The counter
 Decision Date :
 25-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4758/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADI
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1269
2024 INSC 908
Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence to
 Decision Date :
 29-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY
 versus
SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1122
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIR
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10
2024 INSC 163
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction. Headnotes Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and not
 Decision Date :
 04-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345/2024
 | 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.

SHANKAR
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 10
2024 INSC 366
Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether there is sufficient material against the appellant prompting the trial court to pass a summoning order u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Summoning order u/s. 319 – Legality of – Appellants facing trial for u/s. 319 by the trial court – High Court refused to quash the summoning order – Correctness: Held: Degree of satisfaction required to exercise power u/s. 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power – Only when the evidence is
 Decision Date :
 02-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2367/2024
 | 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.

SUNIL @ SONU ETC.
 versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 616
2024 INSC 727
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that as to whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or in the facts and circumstance of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 not amounting to murder – Pre-existing disputes between the parties leading to verbal altercation whereafter accused persons attacked the victims with knives and dandas, resulting in death of one – FIR lodged by one of the victim as also the appellant – Conviction of the
 Decision Date :
 24-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3978/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


HDFC BANK LTD.
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1902
2024 INSC 807
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials. Headnotes† Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and as
 Decision Date :
 22-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
 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.

PREM RAJ
 versus
POONAMMA MENON & ANR.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 29
2024 INSC 260
Coram : SANJAY KAROL
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed. Headnotes s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand
 Decision Date :
 02-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1858/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


V.D. RAVEESHA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2265
2024 INSC 1060
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC
 Decision Date :
 22-10-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ANIL MISHRA
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 385
2024 INSC 189
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the entire proceedings of the case against the accused on the basis of a Settlement Agreement where the complainant in the FIR was not made a party. Headnotes During the pendency of the trial, a Settlement Agreement was i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and one of the victims i.e. Respondent No.5 – Trial Court on considering the said agreement rejected the same by observing that (i) chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 of the IPC
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1335/2024
 | 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.

ACHIN GUPTA
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 129
2024 INSC 369
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2379/2024
 | 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.

MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 739
2024 INSC 639
Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e.,‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.6 – Hindu Succession Act,
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3599/2024
 | 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.

PREM PRAKASH
 versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 955
2024 INSC 637
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 – Appellant was in judicial
 Decision Date :
 28-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3572/2024
 | 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.

ANEES
 versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 164
2024 INSC 368
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’s
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
ASHOK SIRPAL
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 930
2024 INSC 819
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention
 Decision Date :
 24-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4277/2024
 | 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.

SHENTO VARGHESE
 versus
JULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 409
2024 INSC 407
Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether. Headnotes† Code of s.102(3) – Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate: Held: The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in section 102(3) has not received judicial construction – The said expression must receive a reasonable construction
 Decision Date :
 13-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2531/2024
 | 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.

SARFARAZ ALAM
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 267
2024 INSC 18
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s right to make a representation, the communication regarding the same if to be made both orally and in writing. Headnotes Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right
 Decision Date :
 04-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 45/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.