English

বাংলা - Bengali
ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL
 versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 20
2023 INSC 198
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Evidence – Extra-judicial Confession – Evidentiary value – Lady found murdered by a sharp cutting weapon – During investigation, revealed that the appellant-husband of the deceased had confessed before the prosecution witness that he had murdered the deceased with the spot where the body of the deceased was found – However, the trial court found the evidence of the witnesses contradictory to each other and not trustworthy, and acquitted the appellant – In appeal, the High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s. 302 – Interference
 Decision Date :
 03-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2269/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu
اُردُو - Urdu

 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.

IMTIYAZ AHMAD MALLA
 versus
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 165
2023 INSC 179
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Service Law: Reinstatement – Petitioner issued appointment letter for the post of constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police – He suppressed the information with regard to his involvement in the criminal case – In view thereof, his Later, the petitioner acquitted in the criminal case pending against him – High Court set aside the cancellation order – Respondent directed to take further action – On reconsideration, the Director General of Police in view of the criminal background of the petitioner, found
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 678/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 644
2023 INSC 465
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.158, 173(3) – Reinvestigation by another agency – Order passed by Secretary (Home), State of U.P., Lucknow for reinvestigation by CBCID – Legality of – Held: s.173(3) r/w s.158 does not permit the Secretary further investigation/reinvestigation by another agency, other than the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station and/or his superior officer – For reinvestigation, the prior permission/approval of the Magistrate is required – In the present case, the Secretary (Home) passed
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1294/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

AMBALAL PARIHAR
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 213
2023 INSC 946
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Impugned order passed in Civil Writ Petition, fi led by the second to fourth respondents for clubbing of eight FIRs fi led against them, directing that no coercive action be taken against the aforesaid respondents in connection with the said FIRs, if – Abuse of process of law – Forum hunting – Six FIRs were registered against the second to fourth respondents, at the instance of the appellant – Two other FIRs were also registered against them by some other fi rst informants, respondents sought quashing thereof,
 Decision Date :
 16-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3233/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MANAK CHAND @ MANI
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 74
2023 INSC 959
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the appellant for off ence of rape u/s. 376 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 376 – Rape - Allegation of the prosecutrix aged less than 16 years, against her was raped two three times when she had gone to her sister’s matrimonial home – Considering the family relations, initially the matter was sought to be settled by the marriage of the two – However, the off er was turned down, and the prosecutrix’s father lodged an FIR
 Decision Date :
 30-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MATHEW ALEXANDER
 versus
MOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1083
2023 INSC 621
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 482 – Quashing of final report – Motor accident matter – Rash and negligent driving – Appellant’s son was driving a car which collided with the gas tanker lorry – Death of appellant’s son and five others travelling in legal representative of the deceased passengers – Claim petition also filed by the appellant against the driver and the insurer of the tanker lorry, and against the owner – FIR against the appellant’s son u/s. 279 and 304 A, however, abatement of charges against him on his
 Decision Date :
 13-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 402
2023 INSC 133
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Conviction under – Evidence Act 1872 – s. 106 – Prosecution case is that petitioner-accused had taken victim-deceased – Thereafter the very next day, victim was found lying dead on road u/s. 302 IPC – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held: The time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the
 Decision Date :
 17-02-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 9221/2018
 | 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
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.

MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 829
2023 INSC 415
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 , 201, 120-B – Circumstantial Evidence – Criminal Conspiracy – Businessman-victim threatened for money and shot dead by two motorcyclists – Appellant and several others chargesheeted – Trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused However, the High Court acquitted all the accused except the appellant – On appeal, held: Prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, as none was found present at the scene of the incident – Neither of the independent witness supported the prosecution case –
 Decision Date :
 24-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 915/2016
 | 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.

IRFAN @ NAKA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 789
2023 INSC 758
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution could be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant who was convicted for off ence punishable u/ss.302, 436 and 326-A, IPC and sentenced to death, for allegedly setting his son and his real brothers on fi dying declarations. Evidence – Dying declarations – Sole basis of conviction – When not justifi ed – Appellant had strained relationship with his son (victim- deceased) from his first marriage and his two brothers (victims- deceased), all of whom, as per the prosecution,
 Decision Date :
 23-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 825/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KAUSHAL KISHOR
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 581
2023 INSC 4
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Constitution of India – Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) – Are the grounds specified in Article 19(2) in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law, exhaustive, or can restrictions on the right to free speech not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights – Held: The grounds lined up in Art.19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive – Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 113/2016
 | Disposal Nature :
 Reference answered

 |  Bench :
 5 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.

SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTY
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1135
2023 INSC 749
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellants-accused (A4 and A2) were convicted u/s.302, s.120B, IPC and sentenced accordingly. Whether High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the appeals fi led by them and upholding their conviction. Administration of Criminal Justice to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Conviction unsustainable: Held: There is suffi cient material on record giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Appellants were able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7
 Decision Date :
 26-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1541/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

MANOJ KUMAR SONI
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 246
2023 INSC 705
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Conviction of both the appellants-accused respectively u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC was based largely upon disclosure statements made by them and the co-accused, unaccompanied by supporting evidence, if justifi ed Evidence – Disclosure any supporting evidence, to convict u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC – If adequate: Held : No – Although disclosure statements hold signifi cance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence suffi cient on its own and without anything more to
 Decision Date :
 11-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1030/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 197
2023 INSC 819
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a transferee entity-a successor bank (DBS Bank) can be fastened with corporate criminal liability for the off ences which the amalgamating entity-the erstwhile Laxmi Vilas Bank (LVB) is accused of. Criminal Law – Corporate criminal liability – entity: Held: Criminal liability of a company cannot be transferred ipso facto, except when it is in the nature of penalty proceeding – Only defi ned legal proceedings are succeeded to by the transferee company, which is the DBS Bank in the instant case – Further, every scheme
 Decision Date :
 11-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2242/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
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.

VAHITHA
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 942
2023 INSC 151
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Conviction under – Strangulation of child – Prosecution case that appellant strangulated her five year old child to death while PW-1 (mother-in-law of appellant) had gone out of the house – As per the FIR, when PW-1 came back she saw the appellant tie the outer end of her saree tightly around the neck of the child – During her testimony PW-1 stated that she found the appellant sitting silently next to the deceased child when she came back to the house – Upon hearing PW-1 shout; daughters of PW-1 i.e. PW-2
 Decision Date :
 22-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 762/2012
 | 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.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 386
2023 INSC 791
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant convicted u/s. 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment, whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and as upheld by the High Court is just and proper. Sentence/sentencing – Trial Court convicted A-2 (appellant) u/s. him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment – Conviction and order of sentence of appellant confi rmed by the High Court – Limited question before the Supreme Court regarding the quantum of sentence: Held: It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence,
 Decision Date :
 04-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2710/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SITA SOREN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 753
2023 INSC 856
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue pertains to whether an MP or MLA can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for taking bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular manner in the House; and as to correctness of case. Constitution of India – Art. 194(2) – Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof – Issue as regards immunity to an MP or MLA from criminal prosecution for taking bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular
 Decision Date :
 20-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019

 | Direction Issue :
 Papers to be placed before Hon’ble CJI for constituting larger Bench of seven judges

 |  Bench :
 5 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.

SIBY THOMAS
 versus
M/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 821
2023 INSC 890
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the impugned order, the High Court declined to quash the complaint u/s.138 r/w. s.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua the appellant-accused no.4 in exercise of the power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 Respondent fi led complaint u/s. 138 r/w. s.141 of the NI Act – Appellant set up twin grounds to seek quashment of the complaint against him; fi rstly, that he had resigned from the partnership fi rm on 28.05.2013 whereas the cheque in question was issued on 21.08.2015 and secondly, that
 Decision Date :
 10-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3139/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

NAND LAL AND OTHERS
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 276
2023 INSC 224
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant – Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR – Said accused then alongwith the other accused weapons formed an unlawful assembly, and assualted the victim-complainant’s father along with the prosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim – Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s. 302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life
 Decision Date :
 14-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1421/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
 versus
SUSHILA & ORS.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 573
2023 INSC 36
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent no.1-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) since neither physical possession of the land was taken nor they were paid compensation – Allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken over by the acquiring body and handed
 Decision Date :
 13-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9205/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRAKASH AGGARWAL
 versus
GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 844
2023 INSC 464
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Held: Respondent No.1-complainant has attempted to turn a purely contractual dispute between the parties into a criminal case – Not only that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint – Further, at its face value, does not disclose that any of the ingredients of the offence complained of have been made out – Thus, the present complaint is nothing else but an abuse of process of law – Complaint filed before the trial court u/ss.403, 406, 420, 120B, IPC is dismissed –
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VIKAS CHAUDHARY
 versus
THE STATE OF DELHI
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 748
2023 INSC 412
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Sentence/Sentencing: Imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission – Correctness of – Victim aged 18 years, kidnapped for ransom and on the same day was killed by strangulation, and the body was burnt, to eliminate evidence – of murder, the accused regularly made ransom calls to the family – Trial court convicted all the accused persons u/ss. 302, 364A, 201, r/w s. 120B – Appellants-A-1 and A-2 also convicted u/s. 411 with A-1 additionally u/ss. 420, 468 and 471 and sentenced to life imprisonment
 Decision Date :
 21-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2022
 | 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
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.
 versus
CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC.
-
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 1139
2023 INSC 972
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.69 – Summons issued under – Invocation of s.438, CrPC by the person summoned – Impermissibility of – Held: If any person is summoned u/s.69, 2017 Act for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provision of s.438, – The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 – This is exactly what the respondents did in the present case – By filing criminal applications u/Art. 226 before the High Court, the
 Decision Date :
 17-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1963/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
 versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 918
2023 INSC 723
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 167(2) proviso (a) (ii) – Default Bail – Claim for – 60/90 day period of remand under proviso (a) to s. 167(2) – Computation of – Day on which the Magistrate orders remand to be – Held: s. 167(2) pertains to the power of the Magistrate to remand an accused and there is no reason why the date of the Magesterial Court’s gaze on the accused, should be excluded – Ignoring the date of remand u/s. 167 in the 60/90 day period would militate against the
 Decision Date :
 27-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Reference answered

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
SANTOSH KARNANI & ANR
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 476
2023 INSC 380
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7, 13(1), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41A, 438 – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Tax Department initiated search and seizure action against the complainant’s company Commissioner of Income Tax was handling the case of the complainant – Allegation against the respondent that he made a demand of illegal gratification to help the complainant with his case – The said conversation of demand between the complainant and the respondent was recorded in
 Decision Date :
 17-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1148/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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.

OMPRAKASH SAHNI
 versus
JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 141
2023 INSC 478
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – The three respondents were convicted for the murder of the appellant’s brother by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment – The order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the prayed before the High Court that they be released on bail pending the final disposal of their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment – High Court suspended sentence and ordered their release on bail – On appeal, held: The endeavour on the
 Decision Date :
 02-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1331/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JOSEPH
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 505
2023 INSC 843
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the writ petition fi led by the petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the State Government, to prematurely release him, having been in custody-actual imprisonment for over 26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years of remission earned, for off ence punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 IPC, should be allowed. Premature release – Convict served over 26 years in actual imprisonment and served 35 years of sentence including 8 years of remission earned for off ences punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 – Case
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 520/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

ROHIT BISHNOI
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 502
2023 INSC 642
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail – On facts, an honour killing matter, wherein victim in extra-marital-live in relationship with the sister-in-law Allegation that the respondents conspired to kill the victim and later shot him dead – FIR lodged by the brother of the victim against the respondents – Respondents charged u/s. 302 and 120B IPC and ss. 3 r/w ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Bail application – Grant of bail
 Decision Date :
 24-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2078/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

SRI GULAM MUSTAFA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 354
2023 INSC 511
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Administration of Justice –Abuse of Process of Law – Civil dispute relating to land given the colour of criminality – Held: There is a huge unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land Criminal case was lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits coupled with denial of interim relief to the respondent no.2/her family members – Thus, criminal proceedings were resorted to with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and vengeance – Further, even if the
 Decision Date :
 10-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1452/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

P. YUVAPRAKASH
 versus
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 478
2023 INSC 676
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3,4,5,6,7, 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.10 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Acquittal under – appellant-accused and others kidnapped the victim ‘M’ (allegedly 17-year-old girl) – Complaint lodged u/s. 366A of IPC – Appellant solemnized marriage with her and engaged in sexual intercourse – M was traced by police – In her statement recorded,
 Decision Date :
 18-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1898/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 versus
ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 383
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent u/s.391 of Cr.P.C., directing summoning and recording of evidence of one DCP, who wrote a book “Gunning for the Godman:The True story behind Asaram Bapu’s conviction” had recorded a video of the scene of the crime (i.e. Kutiya) on his mobile phone on 21.08.2013, which is the day prior to the drawing of the site maps on 22.08.2013 – It was alleged that the victim was tutored based on the videography of the scene of the crime a day prior to the preparation
 Decision Date :
 17-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1156/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

PESALA NOOKARAJU
 versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 520
2023 INSC 734
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order of preventive detention passed against the appellant detenu by the District Collector in exercise of his powers u/s. Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders and Land
 Decision Date :
 16-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2304/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ANANT THANUR KARMUSE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 56
2023 INSC 168
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(8) –Further Investigation – Transfer of Investigation to CBI –Appellant shared a viral picture of then Cabinet Minister on facebook–As per him, appellant was forcibly took from his residence by up and threatened by the police – FIR lodged by appellant, however, name of the Cabinet Minister not named in FIR – Writ Petition was filed in the High Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBI or to any other agency–During the pendency of the writ petition, the trial Court
 Decision Date :
 24-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BALU SUDAM KHALDE & ANR
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 851
2023 INSC 314
Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w 34 – Prosecution case that verbal altercation between the parties resulting in a fight wherein first informant assaulted on the head and the deceased suffered severe assault and succumbed to his injuries – Appellants convicted u/s 302 r/w 34, imprisonment, however, acquittal of A-2 and A-4 – High Court upheld the order – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses is consistent and no good reason for the court to disbelieve the ocular version as narrated by the three
 Decision Date :
 29-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1910/2010
 | 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.

ABHISHEK
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 507
2023 INSC 779
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, SANJAY KUMAR, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question pertains to quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Case pending before the magistrate against the appellants, mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws u/s. 498A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Penal Code 1860 – s. 498A – Harassment for dowry – In the midst of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, complaint by wife-daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws alleging that they subjected her to mental and physical harassment for dowry – Quashing of criminal proceedings:
 Decision Date :
 31-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1457/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF GUJARAT
 versus
DILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 847
2023 INSC 894
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in allowing the application for discharge fi led by the accused; and as such whether the order of the sanctioning authority is liable to be set aside and consequently, the charge-sheet fi led by to be quashed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application for discharge – Principles to be considered: Held: The court must proceed on an assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the said material to
 Decision Date :
 09-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2504/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.