Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2,851 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,801–2,000.

VIKAS KUMAR ROORKEWALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS,

2011 INSC 2711 January 2011Disposed off

The petitioner, son of a murdered Superintending Engineer, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the CrPC seeking to move the murder trial from Haridwar to Delhi, alleging that witnesses were being threatened by the accused's powerful gang and that the investigating and prosecuting agencies had failed to prote

S.K. JHA COMMODREversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 2811 January 2011Dismissed

Three Naval Officers were arrested for offences under the Indian Penal Code and were remanded to judicial custody. The Commanding Officer of their naval unit applied to the magistrate for the accused to be handed over for trial under the Navy Act, 1957 (court‑martial). The magistrate rejected the application, holding t

MANOJ YADAVversusPUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.

2011 INSC 3111 January 2011Dismissed

Manoj Yadav appealed against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s order that enhanced his wife’s maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from Rs.1,500 to Rs.4,000 per month. The appellant argued that the State amendment (Madhya Pradesh Act 10 of 1998) capped maintenance at Rs.3,000 per month,

M/S. MANDVI CO-OP BANK LTD.versusNIMESH B. THAKORE

2010 INSC 2711 January 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the special provisions introduced by the 2002 amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly section 145 which allows the complainant to give evidence on affidavit and permits the court to summon such deponents for examination. The Court clarified that under s.145(2) the accu

JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 96010 December 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants, husband and in‑laws, were charged under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC for the alleged suicide of the wife after twelve years of marriage, based on a FIR filed by her father. They sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing that no prima facie case existed, particularly for abetment o

DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 95310 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 deteriorated, leading the wife to file an FIR under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act alleging cruelty and dowry demands, while also implicating the husband’s parents and sisters-in-law. The appellants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory

ROHTAS & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2020 INSC 69410 December 2020Disposed off

The appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender were convicted for attempt to murder under IPC s.307 read with s.149 and for rioting with deadly weapons under s.148. They challenged the convictions on the ground that, after the acquittal of three co‑accused, the remaining number fell below the statutory minimum of five requ

SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHIversusSTATE OF UP & ANR

2019 INSC 135510 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of a deceased woman, alleged that her daughter was murdered by her son‑in‑law (the second respondent) rather than having committed suicide. During the trial of a friend of the second respondent for abetment of suicide under IPC s.306, the trial court, on the basis of the appellant’s testimony and

ABCDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 134710 December 2019Disposed off

The petitioner (ABCD) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing that investigations under FIR No.58/2018 (rape) and FIR No.256/2018 (extortion) be transferred from Delhi Police to an independent central agency, along with protection under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Court examined the progress of the investig

RAJAversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 134610 December 2019Dismissed

The case involved seven accused of a dacoity during which five eye‑witnesses were seriously injured. All six of the accused (Nos.1‑6) were identified by the injured witnesses in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and were convicted under Sections 394, 395, 396 and 449 of the IPC; accused No.7 was acquitted. On appeal,

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 135210 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that Section 79 of the I

SHANTHAMALLESHAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2018 INSC 118310 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were charged under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly throwing kerosene on a thatched shed and setting it alight. The trial court convicted all four accused and imposed fines; the High Court enhanced the sentence of accused No.1 and set aside the convictions of the others. On appeal,

YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Disposed off

The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for s

RAMENDRA@ RAMAN DHULDHUEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a junior assistant in the Indore Regional Transport Office, was investigated for possessing property allegedly acquired through corrupt means under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 came into force, the Special Judge dec

BALBHADRA PARASHARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a manager of a primary agriculture credit cooperative society, was charged under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets beyond his known income, and a sanction to prosecute was granted. The appellant challenged the sanction before the High Court under Section 482 o

SHLOK BHARDWAJversusRUNIKABHARDWAJ & ORS.

2014 INSC 85410 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife married in 1996; the husband filed for divorce in 1997 and the wife filed a criminal case alleging cruelty under Sections 498‑A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial magistrate acquitted all accused in 2002. While the parties later settled their differences and obta

VEER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 81810 December 2013Dismissed

The appellants Veer Singh and others were convicted for the murder of twelve persons and the attempted murder of a family member, based primarily on the testimony of a severely injured eye‑witness, Harshan Kaur, supported by medical reports, a hostile witness, and forensic material. The appellants challenged the reliab

R. RAJENDRANversusKAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 130410 November 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a doctor, was alleged to have had an extramarital affair with respondent No.1, resulting in the birth of a child in 2007 while she was married to Abdul Latheef. Respondent No.1 filed criminal complaints for cheating and harassment and sought a DNA test to establish the appellant as the biological father,

KHEKH RAMversusSTATE OF H.P.

2017 INSC 109310 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

In the early hours of 20 October 2009 a police patrol stopped an Alto vehicle from which the driver fled; a bag of charas and the appellant Khekh Ram's bank passbook were recovered. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver and in

ROHIT TANDONversusTHE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

2017 INSC 109610 November 2017

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Rohit Tandon challenging the denial of regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court held that the threshold conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, as the prosecution presented substantial evidence of the appellant’s involvement

S.K. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 121510 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a Colonel in the Army Ordnance Corps, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges: corruption for accepting Rs 10,000, possession of ammunition without licence, and an act prejudicial to good order and discipline for possessing Rs 28,000 cash. The GCM convicted him of the first two charges and

SIBY THOMASversusM/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD

2023 INSC 89010 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former partner of a partnership firm, challenged a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the complaint did not specifically allege that he was in charge of the business at the time the cheque was issued and that he had resigned

N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR.versusK. LALITHA

2022 INSC 132310 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a society treasurer, alleged that the appellant, N.S. Madhanagopal, hurled unparliamentary words during a dispute over waste‑water flow, and claimed offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words) and 341 (wrongful restraint). The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, but the Supreme Court ex

BILAL HAJAR @ ABDUL HAMEEDversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2018 INSC 94510 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, A-6, was convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC for participating in a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva. The prosecution alleged that nine accused met at A-6's house on 1 September 1991, decided to kill Siva, and the murder was carried out on 5 September 1991 by some of the accused. The conviction re

PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOIversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA

2018 INSC 95010 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Pradeep BisoI, was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for causing the death of Bhaskar Sahu through a bomb and acid attack. The victim had given a detailed statement to the investigating officer on 5 December 1990 under Section 161 of the CrPC, but died on 25 March 1991, more than three months later

SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017 INSC 102710 October 2017

Santosh was accused under Section 408 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for receiving misappropriated food grains. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the trial court and the Nagpur High Court. After depositing the alleged amount, he obtained interim protection, but the

RASHEEDA KHATOON (D) THROUGH LRS.versusASHIQ ALI S/O LT. ABU MOHD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2014 INSC 70110 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an alleged oral gift (hiba) of a house by Abdul Haq, a Muslim, to Rasheeda Khatoon about seven years before his death. After Haq's death, his heirs sought possession, prompting Rasheeda to file a suit for declaration of ownership. The trial court and first appellate court held the oral gift valid, de

ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAINversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012 INSC 46110 October 2012Reference answered

The appellant, Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain, claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and therefore could not be tried in a regular criminal court. The claim was not raised in the trial or earlier appeals, and the question before the Supreme Court was whether a claim of juvenility under s.7A

MOHD. IMRAN KHANversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2011 INSC 73610 October 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by Mohd. Imran Khan and Jamal Ahmed against their conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court held that the prosecutrix, Monika, was a minor (under 16) at the time of the offence, based on her birth certificate and the acknowledged margin of error in radiological age estimate

VINOD KUMAR PANDEY & ANR.versusSEESH RAM SAINI & ORS.

2025 INSC 109510 September 2025Disposed off

The case concerned two Central Bureau of Investigation officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, who were alleged to have committed a series of cognizable offences under the IPC, prompting writ petitions seeking registration of FIRs against them. The Delhi High Court, after examining the complaints and a prelimina

S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C

2024 INSC 73210 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, obtained a maintenance order of Rs.12,000 per month and Rs.1,00,000 compensation under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2015. The respondent husband later filed an application under Section 25 seeking to set aside that order and to recover all maintenance

RAGHUVEER SHARANversusDISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 68110 September 2024

The appellant, a bank cashier, was examined as a witness in 2016 and admitted altering the tenure of a fixed deposit, a statement recorded at the pre‑summoning stage. During the trial, another witness (PW‑1) testified in 2022 that the appellant had made the interpolations, leading the bank to move an application under

RIZWAN KHANversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2020 INSC 54310 September 2020Dismissed

The appellant Rizwan Khan was seized with 20 kg of ganja from a motorcycle and convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the ND PS Act. He challenged the conviction on several grounds, including that the prosecution relied solely on police witnesses, that the procedural requirements of Sections 42 and 55 of the ND PS Act

AGversusSHIV KUMAR YADAV &ANR.

2015 INSC 65410 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two criminal appeals filed by the Attorney General against the High Court’s order allowing the recall of all prosecution witnesses in a rape trial after the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded. The accused argued that his earlier counsel was incompetent and that the

DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI AND OTHERSversusSURENDRA NATH RAI

2015 INSC 102010 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the death of a 14‑year‑old girl who underwent surgery in a government hospital performed by three medical officers. The girl's father filed a criminal complaint alleging murder under Section 304A of the IPC. The doctors filed an application under Section 197 of the CrPC seeking a sanction from the Sta

MAHAMADKHAN NATHEKHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2014 INSC 100210 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Three accused were tried for the murder of Firozbhai under Sections 302, 120(8), 201 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted them, finding that the prosecution's circumstantial case did not establish a homicidal death and that the injury could have been accidental. The Gujarat High Co

LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P. LTDversusSUKARSH AZAD & ANR

2013 INSC 60210 September 2013Dismissed

Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Ltd. (appellant) lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakh issued by the managing director of the respondents was stopped, leading to its dishonour. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC offering to p

SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 60110 September 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sunil Damodar Gaikwad, murdered his wife and two sons and attempted to kill his daughter, later reporting the incident to police. He was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 307 and sentenced to death for the murder and life imprisonment for the attempt. The appeal centered on whether the death sentence

VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2012 INSC 38610 September 2012Dismissed

The complainant, Savita Madhav Akhade, alleged that she and her family were insulted and assaulted on caste grounds by Vilas Pandurang Pawar and others, leading to an FIR under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused applied for anticipatory

ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2010 INSC 60210 September 2010Dismissed

Abu Salem, an absconding accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, was arrested in Portugal and extradited to India under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (applied to Portugal by a 2002 notification). Portugal granted extradition for certain offen

KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 81010 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder and rioting under Sections 302, 307 and 148 of the IPC based primarily on the testimonies of two relatives of the deceased, one an alleged eye‑witness (PW‑1) and the other an injured witness (PW‑2). The Supreme Court examined the credibility of these witnesses,

RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 80910 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (A‑1 and A‑2) were convicted by the Karnataka High Court for murder under Section 302 IPC, overturning their acquittal by the Sessions Court, while the other 20 accused remained acquitted. The prosecution alleged that 22 persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the

BRAJESH SINGHversusSUNIL ARORA & ORS.

2021 INSC 38810 August 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a contempt petition filed by Brajesh Singh alleging that several political parties wilfully disobeyed the Court's order dated 13‑02‑2020, which required parties to disclose the criminal antecedents of their candidates and the reasons for their selection, within 48 hours of nomination. The

C. RONALD & ANR.versusSTATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS

2011 INSC 56510 August 2011Disposed off

The appellants C. Ronald and Anil Kumar were caught with counterfeit Rs.100 notes after a gambling incident; the police seized numerous fake notes from their possession and homes. The trial court acquitted them, but the Calcutta High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted them under the provisions relating to circulat

SAROJBEN ASHWINKUMAR SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2011 INSC 57010 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against a partnership firm and its two partners. The complainant later applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to join two additional partners as co‑accused, relying solely on the firm's registration document that listed them

MOHD. ABDUL SAMADversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 50610 July 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a Muslim husband, obtained a triple talaq and was ordered by the Family Court to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to his divorced wife, which the High Court reduced to Rs.10,000. He appealed, arguing that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not apply to Muslim women af

MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.

2024 INSC 50310 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Forest Section Officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from a saw‑mill operator. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s testimony, a friend who acted as a shadow witness, and the recovery

MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 59410 July 2018Dismissed

The case arose from a factional clash in which the deceased, Machindra Joshi, was attacked with swords, knives and a motorcycle chain by the appellants Motiram Padu Joshi, Ratan Maruti Vaskar, Devidas Maruti Vaskar and Ramnath Joshi, leading to his death. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the eyewitne

JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 45810 July 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. He later claimed to have been a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 13 years 8 months, but documentary and medical evidence established his age as about 17 years, making hi

ANAND MOHANversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2012 INSC 27710 July 2012Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of a District Magistrate during a funeral procession of a political leader, where 36 persons were charged. The trial court convicted A‑1 (Anand Mohan) and six others under sections 147, 302/149, 307/149 and 302/109, sentencing A‑1, A‑3 and A‑4 to death. The High Court acquitted A‑2 to A‑7

BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR

2012 INSC 27810 July 2012Dismissed

The appellant Bable @ Gurdeep Singh was convicted under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34 for the murder of Ishwari Verma. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the FIR lost its relevance because the informant turned hostile, the oral dying declaration was not corroborated, his injuries were unexplained, and the acquittal

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAVI SHANKAR SINGH & ORS.

2026 INSC 65010 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that trial courts, while trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, must examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before charge‑framing, even when the accused does not c

SRI GULAM MUSTAFAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2023 INSC 51110 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gulam Mustafa, Managing Director of GM Infinite Dwelling, was named as Accused No.18 in an FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions, arising from a long‑standing land ownership dispute that had been litigated in civil courts for o

REKHA JAINversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2022 INSC 54910 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The original complainant lodged a complaint against her husband, Kamalesh Mulchand Jain, alleging that he cheated her and took 2 kg of gold jewellery, leading to an FIR under Section 420 of the IPC. During investigation, the gold jewellery was found in the possession of the husband’s wife, Rekha Jain, who was also char

RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS.versusHOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 67810 May 2019Disposed off

The Government of India disinvested its stake in ITDC, creating Hotel Queen Road Ltd (HQRL) as a special purpose vehicle. After Moral Trading & Investment Ltd acquired 99.97% of HQRL, the directors (the Mittals) passed three board resolutions in 2004‑2005 allotting and transferring shares to themselves without giving n

BALVEER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2016 INSC 40110 May 2016Dismissed

The appeal arose from a dowry‑death case where the police report did not name the parents of the deceased as accused. The complainant sought cognizance against them under Sections 304‑B and 498‑A IPC. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class rejected the application and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial

GURNAIB SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 33910 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Gurnaib Singh was convicted for the death of his young wife Amarjeet Kaur, who allegedly committed suicide after being harassed for a dowry demand of Rs 50,000. The trial court and the Punjab High Court upheld a conviction under Section 3048 IPC (dowry death) and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imp

V.L.S FINANCE LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 34210 May 2013Dismissed

The Registrar of Companies filed a complaint alleging that V.L.S. Finance Ltd. misrepresented land holdings in its balance sheet, an offence punishable under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956. While criminal prosecution was pending, the company and its managing director applied to the Company Law Board (CLB) fo

RAJESH BHATNAGARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012 INSC 22510 May 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Ms. Renu, who was burnt to death after her husband, brother‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law allegedly poured kerosene on her for refusing to meet dowry demands for a refrigerator, television and cooler. The trial and High Courts had convicted all three accused under Section 304B of the

MRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR.versusC.B.I. NEW DELHI

2012 INSC 22610 May 2012Case Allowed

The petitioners, a husband and wife accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought transfer of their criminal trial from the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Court, New Delhi to the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra, arguing that most of the 92 witnesses (88) were located in Maha

SALIM GULAB PATHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SHO

2012 INSC 22710 May 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Salim Gulab Pathan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting his wife on fire. The prosecution's case rested on the victim's dying declaration, recorded by a police constable after being certified by a doctor as conscious and fit, and corroborated by eyewitnesses who heard the victim imp

DHARMATMA SINGHversusHARMINDER SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 37110 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under several IPC offences based on a FIR filed by respondent No.1, while a cross‑case was filed against respondents No.1 and 2. After the magistrate permitted further investigation, the Superintendent of Police submitted a further report stating that respondent No.1 had acted in self‑defence

BALRAJE @ TRIMBAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 30210 May 2010Dismissed

Balraje (appellant) was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for inflicting a knife blow to the chest of Kailas, resulting in his death. The prosecution relied on eye‑witness testimony of the deceased's son (PW‑1), wife (PW‑2) and a neighbour (PW‑4), who identified Balraje as the assailant. The defence argued that

MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026 INSC 35510 April 2026Disposed off

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 for assaulting a victim's family and were sentenced only to pay fines of Rs.500 and Rs.2,000 respectively. They appealed, seeking the benefit of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that the Act should apply e

BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 29510 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The father and son appellants were acquitted by the Sessions Court of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34. The State appealed, and the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them of murder and assault under s.323. The Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court can overturn an acquittal and held

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusARYAN SINGH ETC.

2023 INSC 33810 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed appeals after the Punjab & Haryana High Court, exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashed the criminal proceedings against Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema, holding that the charges were not proved and the prosecution was malicious. The ac

QAMAR GHANI USMANIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2023 INSC 33710 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant was arrested on 29 January 2022 and the 90‑day period under Section 167 of the CrPC was set to expire on 29 April 2022. The investigating officer sought a 30‑day extension on 22 April 2022, which the trial court granted without the accused being present, and the accused was informed of the extension on 23

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusVIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA

2023 INSC 34510 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI arrested Vikas Mishra for offences under sections 409 and 120B of the IPC and obtained a seven‑day police‑custody remand on 16 April 2021. Mishra was hospitalized on 18 April and subsequently released on interim bail on 21 April, which was later cancelled on 8 December 2021 for non‑cooperation. He filed an appl

ASHISH SETHversusSUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 36110 April 2020Directions issued

The dispute arose between the Seth Group and the Mittal Group, partners in a joint venture (TFIPL) that owned land in Sector 89, Faridabad. The parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) on 4 May 2015, allocating the External Development Charges (EDC) liability of Rs.59.05 crore between them, with the Seth Group

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNIRMALA DEVI

2017 INSC 32510 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against the Himachal High Court’s order that replaced the trial court’s imprisonment sentences for Nirmala Devi with a fine of Rs.30,000. The trial court had convicted her under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison) and 392 (robbery) and sentenced her

SURAIN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2017 INSC 32310 April 2017Disposed off

Surain Singh was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) for killing two men during a violent clash between rival factions in a court of the Executive Magistrate. The clash erupted when Singh, objecting to the presence of a rival, drew his kirpan and struck several persons, resulting in two deaths. He appealed to the Suprem

CHARANDAS SWAMIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2017 INSC 32210 April 2017Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Gadadharanandji, the newly elected Chairman of the Vadtal Temple Board of Trustees, who was allegedly kidnapped, strangled and his body burnt and dumped in Rajasthan by a group of temple functionaries. The prosecution proved the accused's motive—fear of losing control over temple finance

RAJA @ RAJINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 31210 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant Raja Rajinder was convicted of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC sections 302, 201 and 34, based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution established that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, that a knife, blood‑stained clothes and burnt blanket were rec

LAXMIversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 31710 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition filed by acid‑attack victims, examined the implementation of its earlier directions in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) requiring a minimum compensation of Rs.3 lakh per victim and full medical assistance. The Court noted that several states and Union Territories had not fixed t

MS.SversusSUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

2015 INSC 31110 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Ms S, a minor, was raped by Sunil Kumar while guarding her crops. She reported the incident immediately, and a medical examination corroborated her account; three eyewitnesses also attested to the rape. The trial court acquitted the accused because no test identification parade had been conducted, despite the victim id

SWAROOP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2013 INSC 23410 April 2013Dismissed

In 1992, a 17‑18‑year‑old girl (PW2) was allegedly forced at knife point by Swaroop Singh to have sexual intercourse in a sugarcane field. She reported the incident immediately, and medical examination revealed a torn hymen; other witnesses corroborated her account and broken bangles were recovered from the scene. The

RAM DHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2012 INSC 16810 April 2012Dismissed

Petitioner Ram Dhan filed a complaint alleging his son had been kidnapped, leading to the conviction of Balraj and others under IPC 364 r/w 149. The son later testified that he had left voluntarily, prompting Balraj to file an FIR against the petitioner for false information under IPC sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 42

POORANMALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2026 INSC 21710 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Pooranmal was convicted along with co‑accused Ladu Lal for the murder of Ladu Lal’s wife, Aruna, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case against Pooranmal rested solely on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: call detail records showing frequent communication with Ladu Lal, a

PURAN MALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2022 INSC 29710 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the State of Haryana, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Mahesh Kumar, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons despite two prior bail rejections by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing bail

PRITI SARAF & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2021 INSC 17710 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a criminal complaint alleging that the second respondent, a property owner, cheated them in a commercial transaction involving the sale of a mortgaged plot, breaching the agreement and misappropriating funds, leading to FIRs under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC. The Delhi High Court, invoking its inh

GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 18910 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Jagsir Singh on 17 October 1998. The prosecution alleged that Gurjit Singh alias Gora and Surjit Singh alias Sukha, armed with spades (kassi), struck the victim on the head and face after being urged by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Surjit Kaur, to teach the victim a lesson. The accu

MD.ALL @ GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 19010 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants were convicted by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court for kidnapping and rape under IPC sections 363, 366 and 376 based largely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother. The FIR was lodged eleven days after the alleged kidnapping, and the mother failed to file a missing report, raising

V.C. CHINNAPPA GOUDARversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2015 INSC 96810 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants, who were public servants, were prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. They contended that, as public servants, prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was not obtained. The Supreme Court examine

POOJA BHATIAversusVISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.

2014 INSC 17910 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Vishnu Narayan Shivpuri was charged under IPC sections 342, 326‑8 and 506 for allegedly throwing sulphuric acid on his wife, Pooja Bhatia. The Sessions Court denied his bail, but the High Court later released him on bail. After his release, the Superintendent of Police submitted a counter‑affidavit stating that Shivpur

DR. ANAND RAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2026 INSC 14110 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, Dr. Anand Rai, was charged under several IPC provisions and the SC/ST Act for allegedly taking part in a stone‑throwing scuffle at a public event. He sought discharge under s.227 CrPC, arguing that the SC/ST charges lacked essential ingredients such as the victim’s caste status and his knowledge of it. The

VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The deceased Geetha was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted both the husband (appellant No.1) and the mother‑in‑law (appellant No.2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court reversed th

NAUSHEY ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 18210 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, residents of Barwara Khas village, were charged in 1991 with offences including Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting Mahmood with lathis and iron bars, leading to a fracture of his finger. After a police closure report deeming the complaint false, the trial court summoned the appellants, and the cas

M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANRversusP. BALASUBRAMANIAN

2021 INSC 7210 February 2021Dismissed

M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr and its managing partner B. Subramanian issued a cheque of Rs 11.20 lakhs to P. Balasubramanian, which was later dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed; the trial court acquitted the appellants, but the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal, con

RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.

2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I

PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHANversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2020 INSC 15710 February 2020Disposed off

The petitioners challenged Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which removed the requirement of a preliminary inquiry and the need for approval before arrest, and barred anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the directions issued

ARUN SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER

2020 INSC 16310 February 2020Disposed off

The appellants were charged under Section 493 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly demanding dowry and for deceitful cohabitation. The complainant filed an FIR after a purported compromise between the parties, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 482

HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 15310 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hamant Yashwant Dhage, filed a complaint and sought registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence. The Judicial Magistrate refused to register the FIR, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court via a writ petition, which also declined to direct registration. The Supreme Court, recalling its ea

SHARAD KUMAR SANGHIversusSANGITA RANE

2015 INSC 96110 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, Managing Director of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating a buyer by delivering a vehicle with a replaced engine after an accident. The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, primarily alleged wrongdoing by the company but d

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTDversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS

2015 INSC 10310 February 2015Case Allowed

The case concerned a criminal prosecution of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for allegedly failing to implement the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board constituted under the Working Journalists Act. The High Court had held the complaint maintainable;

DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTAversusC.B.I. AND ANR.

2012 INSC 8510 February 2012Disposed off

The appellant, a joint managing director of a large export company, was arrested in 2010 on several economic offences alleged by multiple banks and the CBI. After a prolonged period of custody, intermittent interim bail on medical grounds, and the filing of charge sheets without framing of charges, the High Court rejec

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

2011 INSC 11610 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the award of a hydro‑electric project contract by the Kerala State Electricity Board to K.P. Poulose at rates far above the probable amount, allegedly facilitated by Minister R. Balakrishna Pillai, a Board member and a close associate. The prosecution proved that the Minister, the Board member and an

JAYABENversusTEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR

2022 INSC 2810 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Mukeshbhai, the husband of complainant Jayaben, who was brutally beaten and tied to a gate by five accused persons. The accused were identified in a Test Identification Parade, and the incident was captured on CCTV and a mobile phone. The High Court had released the principal accused, Te

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3110 January 2020Disposed off

The Court examined the Jammu and Kashmir government's orders that shut down mobile, landline, and internet services and imposed Section 144 restrictions on 4‑8‑2019, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights to free speech, press, and trade. The petitioners sought production of all orders, a decla

SALONI ARORAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2017 INSC 4310 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for making a false complaint to a public servant. The prosecution failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a written complaint by the public servant before a prosecution can be lau

STATE OF GUJARATversusRATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAL ANOPSINH CHAUHAN

2014 INSC 2010 January 2014Dismissed

The State of Gujarat charged Ratansingh under sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC for the alleged rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl. The trial court convicted him, awarding a death sentence for murder and life imprisonment for rape. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution’s

HARDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 2110 January 2014

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a court to proceed against persons not originally accused if evidence shows their involvement. It held that the power can be exercised at any time after the charge‑sheet is filed and before judgment, provided the

CHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF AP. REP. BY HOME SECRETARY

2013 INSC 2810 January 2013Dismissed

The appellants were accused of murdering a man and injuring another after a prior confrontation. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, imposing life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's

ARUN BHANDARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 2910 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Arun Bhandari, an NRI, paid Rs.1.05 crore as part payment for a plot in Greater Noida on the basis of an agreement with respondents Savita Singh and Raghuvinder Singh, who later transferred the property to a third party. When the property was not delivered, Bhandari filed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of

SURENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 14129 December 2025Dismissed

Surender Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased with four knife blows to vital parts, causing fatal injuries. The appellant argued that the incident fell under one of the four exceptions to Section 300 IPC, seeking a conviction for a lesser offence. The Supreme Court examin

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.

2024 INSC 9479 December 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the case of two convicts sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a woman, focusing on the inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the death sentence. The convicts filed mercy petitions with the Governor of Maharashtra and the President of India, which were rejected after prolonged

M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 8549 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed a criminal complaint against a private respondent (original accused No.1) and others for offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of the IPC. A charge‑sheet was filed only against accused No.1 after a thorough investigation. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings on

GULABversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 8529 December 2021Dismissed

Gulab was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly exhorting his co‑accused Idrish to shoot the deceased. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, all relatives of the victim, who consistently testified that Gulab arrived with a lathi, urged Idrish to kill, and that Idris

BHAGCHANDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 8519 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant Bhagchandra was convicted of murdering his two brothers and a nephew during a property dispute, with the prosecution relying on the ocular testimony of several rustic village witnesses who identified him as the assailant wielding an axe. The trial court sentenced him to death under IPC sections 302, 201 a

THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBIversusUTTAMCHAND BOHRA

2021 INSC 8559 December 2021Dismissed

The CBI alleged that Uttamchand Bohra aided a senior income‑tax officer (A‑1) in acquiring a flat through a company, thereby helping the officer amass assets disproportionate to his known income. The prosecution’s case rested on Bohra’s custody of the sale deed and the fact that his employee witnessed its execution, al

MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2016 INSC 11189 December 2016Disposed off

On 10 February 1994, a group of accused assembled unlawfully in Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, and attacked the family of the deceased Rajendran, killing eight persons including a one‑year‑old child. The trial court convicted the accused under various provisions of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for each

HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2016 INSC 11199 December 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by HDFC Securities Ltd. and its officers challenging the registration of an FIR and a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing police investigation into alleged unauthorized trades. The appellants argued that the order caused irreparable injury and should be q

SELVARAJ @ CHINNAPAIYANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2014 INSC 8469 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Selvaraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly strangling his infant daughter, based on testimony of the mother, mother‑in‑law and a sister, who later turned hostile, and on a medical report that did not conclusively indicate homicide. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the hostile

K.K. SINGHAL & ORS.versusSTEEL STRIPS LTD.

2014 INSC 8459 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants K.K. Singhal & Ors. issued 33 cheques that were dishonoured, leading the respondent Steel Strips Ltd. to file 26 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties later entered into a settlement at Chandigarh, where the respondent agreed to withdraw the complaints in exchange fo

KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

2014 INSC 8499 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Ranjit Singh, allegedly attacked with lathis and tabbal by the accused amid a land dispute. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal, whose testimonies were corroborated and supported by a post‑mortem report esta

STATE OF M.P.versusRAM MANOHAR PANDEY

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 2689 December 2014Dismissed

Ram Manohar Pandey, a civil engineer on deputation, was charged with corruption offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the Municipal Corporation of Ujjain and the State Government refused to grant sanction for his prosecution while he was in service, yet a charge‑shee

UMA SHANKAR GAUTAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 8479 December 2014Dismissed

The appellant, accused No.1, was convicted along with five others for offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of the IPC for the murder of Kalua. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and two others, but acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6 on the ground that no lathi injuries were found on the deceased and t

MARY PAPPA JEBAMANIversusGANESAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 8119 December 2013Disposed off

Mary Pappa Jebamani filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and verbal abuse under IPC sections 294(b) and 323. The summary trial court acquitted the accused because two key eyewitnesses turned hostile and the trial court found the evidence insufficient. The Sessions Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNISHANT SAREEN

2010 INSC 8649 December 2010Dismissed

Nishant Sareen, a Drug Inspector, was caught accepting a bribe and the Vigilance Department sought sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Principal Secretary (Health) first refused sanction, deeming the case frivolous, but later reversed the decision and granted sancti

PANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 12949 December 2009Dismissed

The appellants Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla and Channey @ Prabhu Narain Shukla were convicted for the murder of Shivdhari, who was killed by a bomb, a pistol shot and a neck cut during a land‑dispute. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the High Court and upheld on appeal. In the Supreme Co

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 9919 November 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking the expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The petition also raised the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1

SAJEEVversusSTATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 9989 November 2023Dismissed

The case concerned the conviction of two accused, Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11), for their role in a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit and sell it as illicit liquor, which caused seven deaths, eleven cases of blindness and injuries to over forty persons. The trial court and Kerala High Court convicted them unde

MADANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2023 INSC 9909 November 2023Disposed off

The case arose from a 2003 incident in Muzzafarnagar where six persons were killed by indiscriminate firing by the appellants Madan, Sudesh Pal and others, allegedly motivated by political rivalry. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced Madan and Sudesh Pa

MAHAVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2016 INSC 10149 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned Mahavir Singh, who was convicted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for murder under Section 302 IPC, overturning an acquittal by the trial court. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of several eyewitnesses, the seizure of a gun and cartridges from the accused, and alleged enmity between

SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2012 INSC 5159 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants, the husband and his parents‑in‑law, were charged under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment and a specific incident of abandonment. They sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, claiming the allegations were false. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 239 and the standard for

C.K. JAFFER SHARIEFversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI)

2012 INSC 5179 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

C.K. Jaffer Sharief, then Union Railway Minister, was accused of having the Managing Directors of RITES and IRCON approve the travel of four persons to London for his medical treatment, allegedly causing pecuniary loss to the PSUs. The FIR alleged that the journeys were arranged without any public interest and that the

SHANTIBHAI J. VAGHELA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5189 November 2012Dismissed

Two minor children residing in a Gurukul (ashram) went missing and were later found dead in the Sabarmati river. An FIR was lodged against seven ash​ram inmates under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and other offences. The High Court quashed the FIR in

MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off

Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced

SANKAR PADAM THAPAversusVIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

2025 INSC 12109 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liaison for a private university, was issued a cheque of Rs.5 crore by the respondent, who was the Chairman and authorized signatory of Orion Education Trust, but the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

CHANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P

2023 INSC 8879 October 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted by the High Court of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The conviction under Section 302/34 was based on the appellate court’s alteration of the original charge (Section 302 with Sections 148

RAJESH JAINversusAJAY SINGH

2023 INSC 8889 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Rajesh Jain alleged that he had advanced loans to Ajay Singh, who later issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Jain filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the trial court acquitted Singh and the High Court upheld the acquittal. The Sup

STATE OF GUJARATversusDILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO

2023 INSC 8949 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat prosecuted Sub‑Inspector Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Rao filed an application for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, contending that the investigating officer had ignored his written

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 10859 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha, convicted under IPC 376(2)(g) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) together with an application for exemption from surrender. The Chamber Judge rejected the exemption, gave them six weeks to surrender and later two weeks to file surrende

RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAINversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 10199 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a settlement recorded on a bond paper of Rs.100 filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. The accused, Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain, was alleged to have taken the bond paper from the court file on 16 July 2010, leading to an FIR and his conviction under Section 379 IPC by the trial court. On appeal

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusBRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.

2017 INSC 10189 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the discharge of Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and others by a Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The key dispute was whether charge‑sheets filed in courts outside Delhi could be counted towards the "continuing unlawful activity" requireme

RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERSversusM/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 7629 October 2015Disposed off

The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion (No.3616 of 2010) in the Bombay High Court seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit. The Single Judge declined to grant any ad‑interim order, directing the parties to file affidavits and setting a hearing date. The petitioners appealed, but the Division Bench upheld

MOFIL KHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2014 INSC 10169 October 2014Dismissed

Mofil Khan and two co‑accused brutally murdered eight members of their own family, including women, children and a physically disabled boy, to obtain property. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the "rarest of rare" doc

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 6689 September 2024Dismissed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requiring the appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, to appear in Delhi and produce documents related to a coal theft and money‑laundering investigation. The appellants challenged the s

DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.

2024 INSC 6699 September 2024Dismissed

The respondent, already in judicial custody for ECIR No.10 of 2021, feared arrest in a separate case (CR No.806 of 2019) and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The complainant objected, arguing that a person already in custody cannot seek anticipatory bail for another offence. The Bombay High

RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 6689 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, a practising advocate, was charged under IPC s.324. After failing to appear on 7 August 2002, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued a non‑bailable warrant (NBW) returnable on 31 October 2002. The appellant appeared on 12 August and the warrant was cancelled, but on 15 August the police insp

UMA SHANKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 5919 September 2010Dismissed

During a Bihar assembly election, an FIR was lodged for murder, robbery and illegal possession of arms, implicating Uma Shankar Singh. The investigation was transferred to the CID and both the CID and local police submitted final reports under Section 173(2) CrPC that exonerated Singh. Despite these reports, the Chief

DHARAMPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2010 INSC 5939 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh, were arrested when police searched a car they were occupying and recovered 65 kg of opium from the vehicle's dicky. They were charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The trial court acquitted them, holding that Section 50 of

MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 5959 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, was arrested in 2023 in connection with CBI and ED investigations into alleged irregularities in Delhi’s excise policy. He remained in custody for about 17 months without trial, and his multiple bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the Delhi

M/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 5859 August 2016Dismissed

The case concerned HCL Infosystem Ltd., a co‑accused in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam, where the sole public servant co‑accused had died before any charge was framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether the Special Judge appointed under s.3(1) of the PC Act could

PHOOL KUMARIversusOFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

2012 INSC 3319 August 2012Disposed off

Phool Kumari was convicted under IPC sections 323, 342, 307 and 34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, later reduced to five years. While incarcerated in Tihar Central Jail she was assigned work as a Sewadar in the Medical Inspection room. She claimed wages for the work done, but the prison superintendent and a vis

PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHIversusPYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR.

2011 INSC 5649 August 2011Case Allowed

The appellant, Pyla Mutyalamma, filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application for maintenance against her husband, alleging a valid marriage in 1974 and desertion after 25 years. The trial magistrate found her to be the lawful wife with two surviving children and awarded Rs.500 per month. The husband appealed, claiming a pri

LAKHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 4899 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Lakhan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning his wife, Savita. Two dying declarations were recorded: the first by an Executive Magistrate stating the death was accidental, and the second by a police ASI accusing the appellant of pouring kerosene and setting her alight. The trial and

ATBIRversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2010 INSC 4919 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants Atbir and Ashok were convicted for the murder of three members of their step‑mother's family, based solely on the dying declaration of the surviving victim, Sonu (Savita), recorded by a police officer in the presence of a doctor. The Supreme Court held that the declaration was reliable, made in a fit sta

GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2024 INSC 4889 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a minor for ransom, robbery and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 364A, 392 and 120B. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of the victim and his father, but the victim's family never reported the incident to police and the key witness, the grandfather, was ne

VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4909 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the conviction of two police officers for the death of Jeeva, who allegedly died from custodial torture at Amraiwadi police station. The trial and High Court had upheld the conviction, later reducing the charge from murder (Sec. 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to

RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 4879 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ratnu Yadav, was convicted by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court for murder of his step‑mother under Section 302 IPC, based primarily on an alleged extra‑judicial confession before a village officer (PW‑1) and the testimony of the deceased’s brother (PW‑5) that the appellant dragged the vict

P RAMESHversusSTATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 7379 July 2019Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder and dowry death under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. During trial, the prosecution sought to record the testimony of the appellant's two minor children, aged eight and six, but the trial judge excluded their evidence, deeming them incompetent because they did not know the judge or lawy

MUKESHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5909 July 2018Rejected

The case concerns the infamous Nirbhaya gang‑rape and murder, where the accused Mukesh was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Mukesh filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, alleging illegal arrest, police‑induced

VINAY SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5919 July 2018Dismissed

The petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal appeals in the Nirbhaya gang‑rape case. They raised numerous grounds, including the abolition of the death penalty, alleged errors in the assessment of eye‑witness testimony, the i

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusANAND MOHAN &ANR.

2015 INSC 4929 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were public servants, were accused of corrupt practices in the construction of a sub‑station and the Economic Offences Wing sought prior sanction for their prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Administrative Department declined to grant sanction, and the Special Judge direc

MANOJ & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 4529 July 2013Dismissed

The appellant Manoj and his relatives were convicted for the dowry death of Meena Devi, who died from burns after being allegedly doused with kerosene and set alight at the behest of her husband, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law. The prosecution relied heavily on a dying declaration recorded by Dr. Rajinder Rai, which w

LOKESH KUMAR JAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 4539 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Lower Division Clerk, was implicated in an FIR filed in 2000 for alleged embezzlement of Rs.4,39,617 based on a CAG report. The police investigation stalled for over nine years because the original records were never produced, despite repeated orders. Meanwhile, a departmental inquiry in 2008 ex

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusSANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.

2010 INSC 3959 July 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under s.95 CrPC ordering the forfeiture of every copy of the book "Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India" on the basis of an FIR alleging offences under s.153, s.153A and s.34 IPC. The High Court quashed the notification, holding it failed to state the grounds of the Gover

AMLESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 8109 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Amlesh Kumar, was charged with multiple offences including dowry harassment and murder after his wife went missing. While seeking regular bail, the High Court of Patna accepted the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer's proposal to conduct narco‑analysis tests on all accused and witnesses. The Supreme Court hel

SATISH NIRANKARIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 4799 June 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Nirankari and his lover Pooja, whose inter‑caste marriage was opposed by her family, went to a vacant house, performed a makeshift marriage, and each consumed copper sulphate. Pooja ingested a larger dose, later hanged herself; Nirankari survived, raised alarm, and sought medical help. He was convicted under IPC

A SHANKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2011 INSC 4129 June 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant A. Shankar was charged under IPC sections 302, 307 and 324 for the murder of Murthy Prasad and the attempted murder of Shankara, the victim's brother. The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to contradictions in the eye‑wit

RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4139 May 2024Disposed off

The Sessions Court convicted two accused under Section 325 IPC, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fines. The Gujarat High Court reduced the term to four years and, invoking Section 357 of the CrPC, ordered each accused to deposit Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, on the condition that pa

M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

2023 INSC 5099 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Jerlyn Capital LLC Dubai, a foreign institutional investor, had shares and funds in an ICICI Bank account. Freeze orders under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were imposed in 2006 and 2010 on the basis of an investigation into alleged offences by Dharmesh Doshi, who had no employment or ownership link wit

DILIP HARIRAMANIversusBANK OF BARODA

2022 INSC 5399 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda had granted a loan to the partnership firm Global Packaging, which issued three cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the authorised signatory Simaiya Hariramani and his partn

BHOLA KUMHARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2022 INSC 5359 May 2022Disposed off

Bhola Kumhar was convicted under IPC section 376 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The Chhattisgarh High Court reduced his term to 7 years rigorous imprisonment but the appellant remained in custody for over 10 years due to alleged default on the f

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITEDversusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6639 May 2019Disposed off

Birla Corporation filed a criminal complaint alleging that respondents had stolen or misappropriated 54 confidential company documents and sought prosecution under IPC sections 379, 403, 411 read with 120B. The trial magistrate, relying on vague statements of the company representative and an employee, issued summons a

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PRJNCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE XIX) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERSversusK. S. PALANICHAMY AND ORS.

2017 INSC 12919 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State, on receipt of complaints from depositors that Global Capital Trading Services had defaulted on returns and allegedly defrauded investors, issued a Government Order on 24‑12‑2012 attaching the immovable properties of the partners under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Fina

IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNANversus.

2017 INSC 4559 May 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against Justice C.S. Karnan of the Madras High Court for repeatedly issuing letters and orders that alleged corruption and caste-based discrimination against numerous judges, including Supreme Court judges, and for publicly scandalising the judiciary. The Court

SUBRATA CHATTORAJversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 3929 May 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined petitions seeking to shift investigation of the multi‑state chit‑fund (Ponzi) scam, which defrauded lakhs of depositors of roughly Rs 10,000 crore, from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The scam involved companies operating across West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and

CHANDRA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 3859 May 2014Dismissed

On 26 January 1996 a bomb exploded at the SMS Stadium in Jaipur, leading to the arrest of six accused, including Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen and others. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver (PW‑1) who implicated the accused, on material recovered from the accused’s premises (ammonium nitrate, dynami

SWAPNIL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 3939 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Swapnil, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but his wife left the matrimonial home in April 2011 and later lodged two police complaints alleging dowry demands and threats to kill. A First Class Judicial Magistrate framed charges under IPC sections 498A and 506 Part II and under Sectio

DHAN RAJ @ DHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 3869 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of Ohan Raj and Badal for murder and robbery, which were based primarily on circumstantial evidence, the extra‑judicial confession of a co‑accused, and the recovery of a briefcase and wrist‑watch. The Court held that the co‑accused’s confessions were inconsistent—naming differ

MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHIversusMD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER

2014 INSC 3879 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Mosiruddin Munshi, paid Rs.5,00,001 to the accused for a plot of land but the seller failed to deliver title documents, prompting a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420 and 1208. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate treated the complaint as an FIR and ordered investigation under CrPC secti

CHANDRAN RATNASWAMIversusK.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 3349 May 2013Disposed off

The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement in which the appellant, Chandran Ratnaswami, alleged that the respondent, K.C. Palanisamy, misappropriated Rs.75 crore and transferred assets improperly. The matter was finally resolved by the Company Law Board and upheld by the Madras High Court, which ordered repayment

NIMMAGADDA PRASADversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3299 May 2013Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and 73 others, including Nimmagadda Prasad, under IPC sections 420, 409, 477‑A and the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged land allocation, illegal gratification, hawala transactions and other economic offences. After the charge‑she

Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3319 May 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the bail application of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, accused in a massive economic offence case involving alleged corruption, land allotments, and money laundering under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI had filed multiple charge sheets and reported that investigations into s

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusV. VIJAY SAI REDDY

2013 INSC 3339 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A‑2) in a case involving alleged conspiracy, fraud and corruption under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Court had granted bail, and the High Court affirmed it, but the Supreme

BHAGWAN DASSversusSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI

2011 INSC 3689 May 2011Dismissed

Bhagwan Dass was convicted for the murder of his daughter, who had left her husband and was living in an incestuous relationship with his cousin. The prosecution proved the case on circumstantial evidence, establishing motive, opportunity, the victim's post‑mortem findings of strangulation, the appellant’s failure to r

NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATIONversusNOIDA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3669 May 2011Disposed off

The Noida Entrepreneurs Association filed a writ petition alleging that the former CEO of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, misused his position between 1993-94 by awarding contracts without tender, evading conversion charges, and illegally converting a 13‑hectare city park

ROMA AHUJAversusTHE STATE AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 3369 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roma Ahuja filed an FIR (No. 121 of 2011) alleging offences of voluntarily causing hurt and assault under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, read with Section 34. The High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR on the ground that the charge‑sheet was filed after the one‑year limitation period prescribed under Section 468

SHUVENDU SAHAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2026 INSC 3679 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shuvendu Saha, was involved in a tenancy dispute with the respondent‑2 complainant, which was settled in a civil suit that was subsequently dismissed. Despite the settlement, the complainant filed a criminal complaint leading to an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 417, 418, 419, 420 and 506(2) IPC an

M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISESversusKAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 2889 April 2024Dismissed

M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises, a partnership firm, filed complaints alleging that four cheques issued by respondent No.1 were dishonoured for insufficient funds and were purportedly issued in discharge of a debt owed to the firm. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 4819 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The accused husband and his sister were charged with murder and dowry death after the victim, Sharada, died from 98% burn injuries. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations in which the victim identified her husband and sister as the perpetrators. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the possibil

JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHERversusSHIVNATH & OTHERS

2019 INSC 4939 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of several khasra lands, alleging that their fathers were lessees under a patta-lease. The appellants-defendants contended that the land had been auctioned in 1929 to their grandfather Gaya Din, who obtained a valid patta-lease (Ex.D‑20) an

PEER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 4829 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Babusingh in September 1992, for which fifteen persons were tried. The trial court convicted seven, including Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh and Peer Singh, based on a "Dehati Nalishi" and statements of witnesses PW‑1 and PW‑5. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the three appellan

RUPALI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2019 INSC 4869 April 2019Disposed off

Rupali Devi left her matrimonial home after enduring cruelty by her husband and his relatives and sought refuge at her parental home. She filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging cruelty. The central issue was whether the courts at the location of the parental home have jurisdiction to ent

MUNSHIRAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

2018 INSC 3159 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a deceased man filed an FIR under Section 306 IPC alleging that his son’s wife and her family had harassed the son, leading to his suicide. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the alleged abetment was not made out. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the qua

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 2619 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and related offences based primarily on a dying declaration (Ex.P‑22) recorded by a police constable who wrote the victim's words as dictated by a police inspector, with later overwriting and insertion of names in different ink. The trial court found the declaration unreliable, n

HIRABHAI JHAVERBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OHS.

2010 INSC 2039 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for an offence committed on 23 July 1986 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction and rejected the appellant's application to compound the offence. After the conviction, the victims filed an affidavit expressing their willi

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2026 INSC 2129 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, married to Dr. Rishi Raj, filed an FIR in March 2022 alleging torture, dowry demands and an attempt to strangle her, implicating her husband, his parents (the appellants) and his sister‑in‑law. The parents‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; the

DEVADASSANversusTHE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 2869 March 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Devadassan, was ordered by a Second Class Executive Magistrate to execute a bond under Sections 110 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to maintain good behaviour and peace. After the bond was executed, he was implicated in a murder case, thereby breaching the bond’s conditions. The magistra

SUMETI VIJversusM/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES

2021 INSC 1729 March 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed

The appellant, Sumeti Vij, ordered non‑woven fabric from the respondent, received the goods and issued two cheques to pay the invoices. Both cheques were returned by the bank for insufficient funds; legal notices were served but the appellant neither responded nor paid within the statutory period, leading to two compla

SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2021 INSC 1719 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners sought transfer of a criminal case (FIR No. 39/2016) from the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Delhi to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Prayagraj under Section 406 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court had earlier allowed the transfer ex parte, but the complainant (respondent No.4) applied for recall, whi

HUSSAIN AND ANR.versusUNION OF LNDIA

2017 INSC 2279 March 2017Disposed off

The appellants, who were in custody for several years—one under trial for an offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and another convicted under Section 302 of the IPC—challenged the denial of bail, invoking their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether bail must be

HARICHARAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,

2011 INSC 1949 March 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the custodial death of Mathura, who was taken into police custody, subjected to electric shock torture, and died shortly after release. The trial court acquitted the police officers, but the High Court convicted them under IPC sections 304 Part II and 330, relying on medical evidence of scrotal burns

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search