Supreme Court of India Judgements

47020 Judgements hosted as on 04/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cr P C

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Criminal Revision — Abatement on death of Revisionist (Informant/Complainant) — Rule of abatement applicable to appeals (Section 394) does not strictly apply to revision, particularly when revision is not initiated by an accused — If the main proceeding survives (e.g., trial is pending), the revision by an informant/complainant does not abate on their death — High Court erred in holding that the revision abates upon the death of the original revisionist (informant), especially since the trial against the accused was pending (Paras 17, 19)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1484 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SYED SHAHNAWAZ ALI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1483 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of FIR — Protection from Arrest — Directions for time-bound investigation — High Court, while declining to quash the FIR, directed the completion of investigation within 90 days and granted protection from arrest till the court takes cognizance (following ‘Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P.’) — ‘Legality’: Such directions granting protection from arrest while refusing to quash are contrary to the law established by the Supreme Court, particularly ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra’ and ‘State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani’ — Granting protection from arrest in this manner amounts to an order under Section 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) without satisfying the statutory conditions and is legally unsustainable and inappropriate — High Courts must scrupulously avoid passing blanket orders of “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” while dismissing or disposing of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 4, 15, 16)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1480 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. MOHD ARSHAD KHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives) — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) — Sections 3 and 4 (Penalty for giving/taking/demanding dowry) — Allegations of matrimonial discord and cruelty — High Court refused to quash FIR and consequent complaint case against husband (appellant) for Section 498A IPC and DP Act charges, despite quashing proceedings against all other in-laws — Supreme Court held that the allegations, including financial dominance (forcing maintenance of excel sheet of expenses) or taunts about weight postpartum, reflect “daily wear and tear of marriage” and cannot be categorised as ‘cruelty’ or warrant criminal prosecution, especially where other family members have been exonerated — Criminal litigation cannot be a tool for personal vendettas. (Paras 4, 11, 23)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1471 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release on bail — Scope and distinction with bail — Appellate Court must record proper reasons for suspending sentence; it should not be passed as a matter of routine — The Appellate Court must not reappreciate evidence or attempt to find lacunae in the prosecution case at this stage — Once convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes, and the High Court should be slow in granting bail pending appeal, especially for serious offenses like murder (Section 302, IPC). (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1468 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH UPADHAYAY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court to quash FIR — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Allegations against former Minister (Chairman of Regularisation Committee) regarding illegal land allotments to non-eligible persons — Principles for quashing FIR reiterated, including where institution and continuance of proceedings amount to abuse of process of court or securing ends of justice, or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide (Bhajanlal guidelines) — High Court should follow steps outlined in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor to determine veracity of quashing prayer. (Paras 12, 12, I-III)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1441 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. ASHOKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Additional Accused Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — Summoning of Additional Accused — Nature and Scope of Power — The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and discretionary, intended to be exercised sparingly, but it is an enabling provision aimed at ensuring that no guilty person escapes the process of law — The prerequisite for its exercise is that it must appear from the evidence adduced during inquiry or trial that a person not already arraigned as an accused has committed an offence — The object is to ensure a fair and complete trial and give effect to the maxim ‘judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur’ (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). (Paras 6, 7)

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1386 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 436-A — Applicability — Undertrial detention exceeding half of maximum sentence — Section 436-A mandates release of undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention extending up to one-half of maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence, unless further detention is ordered with reasons — Exception: This provision is explicitly inapplicable to offences for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the possible punishments under that law. (Paras 7, 9.2, 11)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1418 SUPREME COURT OF INDA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. DAYAMOY MAHATO ETC. ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1402 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( Before : Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan, JJ. )…

You missed

Education

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw