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.

ARVIND KEJRIWAL
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 683
2024 INSC 687
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
*
 Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to his arrest being illegal as well as his application for the grant of regular bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – The High Court upheld the arrest of the appellant by the CBI and congruously denied him regular bail – Propriety: Held: [Per Surya Kant, J.]: CBI complied with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letter
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3816/2024
 | 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.

SELVAMANI
 versus
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 653
2024 INSC 393
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act by the trial court. Whether in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the conviction when prosecutrix and witnesses turned hostile at the cross examination stage. Headnotes Conviction upheld even when prosecutrix and other witnesses turned hostile – Correctness of: Held: In the present case, the
 Decision Date :
 08-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2023
 | 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.

KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 329
2024 INSC 156
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house –
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1427/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


GEORGE
 versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 769
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1
 Decision Date :
 13-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5279/2024
 | 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.

SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 609
2024 INSC 723
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN
 Issue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below –
 Decision Date :
 19-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 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.

JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 439
2024 INSC 960
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the appellants-accused from offences punishable u/s.306, 498A and 114 of IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge of accused – girl’s father against the appellants-husband and in-laws for offences u/ss.306, 498A, 114 IPC alleging that the girl committed suicide after 12 years of marriage due to the physical and mental harassment meted out by the husband which included the husband selling her ornaments, given to her
 Decision Date :
 10-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5175/2024
 | 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

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 698
2024 INSC 413
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Respondents herein were convicted by the Sessions Court for offence punishable u/s. 325 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of five years to four years and further held that if an amount of of the two respondents, then the respondents need not undergo even the four years of sentence. The question falls for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the High Court could be said to be in accordance with law. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 357 –
 Decision Date :
 09-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2481/2024
 | 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.

BHAGWAN SINGH
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 774
2024 INSC 708
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav were various false proceedings in the name of the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner against
 Decision Date :
 20-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3883/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 | 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
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.

MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 23
2024 INSC 158
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in the
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1610/2023
 | 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

मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 992
2024 INSC 645
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When not justified – Constitution of India – Applicability of, irrespective of the seriousness of crime – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B, 489C, 120B, 34 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.19 – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from the
 Decision Date :
 03-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2787/2024
 | 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.

SURENDER SINGH
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 163
2024 INSC 462
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each other
 Decision Date :
 03-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 597/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAMAYAN SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 686
2024 INSC 323
Coram : SANJAY KAROL
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Discretion to grant bail ought not to be used arbitrarily, Appeal allowed – High Court ought not to have been granted bail on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of accused persons; and (iii) overall impact of crime on the society. Held: Accused persons charged under s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120-B,
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2168/2024
 | 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.

ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1031
2024 INSC 519
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name
 Decision Date :
 10-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2877/2024
 | 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.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 676
2024 INSC 502
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate cases
 Decision Date :
 10-07-2024
 | Case No :
 ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 | Direction Issue :
 List the suit for framing of issues.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARI
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJRAT
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 41
2024 INSC 475
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the
 Decision Date :
 08-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3524/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
 versus
SHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 910
2024 INSC 550
Coram : HIMA KOHLI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Appellants, if justified in terminating the services of the respondent on the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF after conducting a departmental inquiry against him on receiving information that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that two criminal him. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Verification of disclosures made by a candidate to the employer – On facts, suppression of material information, submission of false information in the Verification Roll by the respondent at the time of his appointment to the
 Decision Date :
 23-07-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7933/2024
 | 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.

RAM SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 668
2024 INSC 128
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration As per PW-1-informant (son of the deceased), on the fateful evening when he and his brother were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house, his mother was sitting close by on a cot and some neighbours were also sitting on another cot, the instigation he fired on PW-1 but he slipped below the cot and the bullet hit his mother who died immediately. While the co-accused was acquitted on the same set of evidence, whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.301 r/w 302, u/s.307 IPC and his sentence were justified when there was no
 Decision Date :
 21-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 206/2024
 | 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
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.

NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 549
2024 INSC 41
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Issue for Consideration Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case. Headnotes Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17A inserted by (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 – Operation – Allegations against the appellant for commission of offences u/ss.166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 and 109 r/w ss.120-B, 34, 37, IPC and ss.12, 13(2) r/w ss.13(1) (c) and (d), 1988 Act allegedly committed between 2015 and 2019
 Decision Date :
 16-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 279/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger 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.

A.M. MOHAN
 versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SHO AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 722
2024 INSC 233
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration FIR registered against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 (appellant) for offences punishable u/s.420 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant u/s.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 420, IPC, appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients – s.420 when not attracted: Held: For attracting the provision of s.420, IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of s.415, IPC are made out – It must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses the
 Decision Date :
 20-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1716/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


RAMA DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1313
2024 INSC 755
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms – ss.302, 307, read with s.34 – Murder of an MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial Court – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read
 Decision Date :
 03-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC.
 versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1147
2024 INSC 223
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the use of expletives and profane language in the titles and content of the episodes of the web-series ‘College Romance’ constitutes an offence of publication and transmission of obscene and sexually explicit content u/ss.67 Information Technology Act, 2000. Headnotes Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.67, 67A – Penal Code, 1860 – s.292 – “obscenity” – Test for – Complaint filed that Season 1, Episode 5 of the web-series ‘College Romance’, titled
 Decision Date :
 19-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1694/2024
 | 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.

MUKHTAR ZAIDI
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 655
2024 INSC 316
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.190(1)(b), s.200 – FIR lodged – Police report filed u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. – I.O. found that no evidence could be collected which could substantiate the allegations made
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134/2024
 | 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.

SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA
 versus
M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 647
2024 INSC 206
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing of criminal complaints qua the appellant in connection with the offence punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 r/w. s.142 – complainant-respondent is that in-spite of regular follow-ups and reminders, the company-accused no.1 failed and neglected to clear the respondent’s dues – On repeated demands, the company furnished respondent five cheques – When complainant deposited the cheques, they were
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1577/2024
 | 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

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.

KUSHA DURUKA
 versus
 STATE OF ODISHA
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 604
2024 INSC 46
Coram : VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the prerequisites to be mandatorily mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail; and effect of non-mentioning of details of previous bail applications and order in all bail applications. Headnotes Bail – Bail applications – application filed for grant of bail: Held: Details and copies of orders passed in the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner which have been already decided – Details of any bail application filed by the petitioner, pending in any court, higher or lower court, and if none is
 Decision Date :
 19-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 303/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
 versus
SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 319
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.236, 73(a) and 235A – Trial of offences by Special Court –
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3851/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
 versus
PRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 574
2024 INSC 947
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration Effect of delay in executing the death sentence. Headnotes† Sentence – Death sentence – Inordinate, unexplained delay in execution of – Delay in processing, disposal of mercy petitions and issue of warrant of execution of the High Court commuted the death sentence of the convicts to thirty-five years of imprisonment holding that there was an undue and avoidable delay in executing the death sentence – Challenge to: Held: Impugned judgment upheld – An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances
 Decision Date :
 09-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2831/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
 versus
MAYA DEVI & ORS.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 999
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that was
 Decision Date :
 02-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 15016/2024
 | 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.

M. VIJAYAKUMAR
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1054
2024 INSC 177
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide sustainable – Prosecution case that the appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court,
 Decision Date :
 21-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1078/2024
 | 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
 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.

SATISH P. BHATT
 versus
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 241
2024 INSC 16
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified. Headnotes Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension of
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42/2024
 | 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.

STATE OF HARYANA
 versus
MOHD. YUNUS & ORS.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 404
2024 INSC 34
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an Evidentiary value, when witness not trustworthy: Held: For trial u/s. 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness – When there is an
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1307/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAVISHANKAR TANDON
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 558
2024 INSC 299
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein the appellants- accused persons were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, ss.120B and 201, s.302 r/w ss.34 and 120B, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that dead body of the deceased from the pond was on the basis of the information given by the appellants in the statement recorded u/s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Prosecution relied on the memorandum of the appellants-accused u/s.27 and the subsequent
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3869/2023
 | 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

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SMT. NAJMUNISHA
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 442
2024 INSC 290
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
 Issue for Consideration As per the prosecution, secret information was received by PW-2 (Intelligence Officer/Inspector) as to Accused No. 4 (husband of Accused No.1) carrying contraband from a particular route in an auto rickshaw. Said secret information was recorded by her and reported (Zonal Officer, a Gazetted Officer). The raiding party chased the said auto rickshaw however, Accused No.4 allegedly abandoned it fleeing away from the scene. On conducting the search of the said auto rickshaw, the raiding party inter alia found 1.450 Kgs charas. It eventually searched the
 Decision Date :
 09-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2319/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JASEELA SHAJI
 versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 313
2024 INSC 683
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the non-supply of the statement of the person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange to the detenu, has affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5); and whether non-receipt of delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government would affect the right of detenu u/Art.22(5) of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest and detention – Right of the detenu to
 Decision Date :
 12-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3083/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MS. X
 versus
MR. A AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 947
2024 INSC 216
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes Crime Against Women – Sexual intercourse based on promise of marriage – The Appellant-prosecutrix believed that the accused would marry her leading her to consent to establishing a sexual
 Decision Date :
 18-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1661/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF HARYANA
 versus
DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1004
2024 INSC 263
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of a
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483
2024 INSC 767
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting the
 Decision Date :
 03-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

GIRISH GANDHI
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 561
2024 INSC 617
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for also. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with conditions in all of them – Unable to find
 Decision Date :
 22-08-2024
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 149/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.