Cr P C Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

December 14, 2025 8:24 am

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. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1384 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROCKY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…of…

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 7, 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, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1371 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDAN PASI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF THE BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, 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 3, 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. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Scope — Principles for quashing FIR or complaint under Section 482 CrPC, including where allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive (referring to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal) — High Court error in refusing to quash proceedings despite clear absence of ingredients for the alleged offences. (Paras 12, 17, 25, 26, 27)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDER CHAND BAGRI Vs. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Application by Operational Creditor — Pre-existing Dispute — Adjudicating authority must determine if operational debt exists, if non-payment has occurred, and if a dispute existed prior to the demand notice (Section 8) — Dispute must be genuine, substantial, and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory (mere ‘moonshine’ or ‘bluster’) — Court is not required to examine the merits of the dispute or satisfy itself that the defence is likely to succeed. (Paras 15, 16, 19)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 62 — Liquidation Process — Sale of Assets — Appeals against NCLAT majority decision confirming forfeiture of amount paid by bidder — Private sale requiring Adjudicating Authority’s prior approval — Regulation 33(2)(d) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 — Where liquidator seeks NCLT approval for private sale after failed auctions and decision to sell at scrap value, the sale falls under Regulation 33(2)(d) and not Regulation 33(2)(c) (sale at price higher than reserve price of failed auction) — Contention that sale was purely a contract governed by Indian Contract Act, 1872, rejected. (Paras 12, 16, 19)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 29A(1), 29A(4), 29A(6), 23(4) — Time limit for arbitral award — Termination of mandate — Substitution of Arbitrator — Section 29A aims for time-bound disposal of arbitration proceedings — An award in non-international commercial arbitration must be made within twelve months from completion of pleadings (Section 23(4)) — If the award is not made within the initial twelve months or the extended six months (by consent), the arbitrator’s mandate terminates unless the Court extends the period (Section 29A(4)). (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

Category: Cr P C

You missed