Cr P C Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 8, 2026 10:27 pm

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 660 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GUPTA Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder — Conviction and sentence — Appeal against — Abatement of appeal due to death of co-accused — Death of two appellants during pendency of appeal — Appeal survives only for the third appellant.

Jun 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 658 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATHU ALIAS JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2024…

Cr P C

Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 632 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts.

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 626 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI AND OTHERS Vs. SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 628 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEESA SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of proceedings — Abuse of process of law — Allegations of sexual offence against father and uncle of prosecutrix — Held, complaint lacked specific factual details and material evidence to establish a prima facie case — Wide-ranging matrimonial litigation between parties indicated a possibility of vexatious litigation and abuse of process — Mere bald allegations without supporting evidence, particularly lack of medical reports for allegations of rape and sexual assault, held insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution, especially where statements of prosecutrix and complainant were verbatim reproductions, suggesting tutoring — Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC if no offence is made out or allegations are absurd/inherently improbable, or instituted with malafide intent for vengeance

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 587 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 235(2) — Conviction without hearing on sentence — High Court, after reversing an acquittal and convicting an accused for the first time, directed the Trial Judge to hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence — Such direction is contrary to law as the appellate court, when convicting for the first time, must hear the accused on sentence and impose it itself — It cannot remit the matter to the trial court for sentencing.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 559 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. THE STATE (UT OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS) ETC. ( Before : K. V. Viswanathan and Vijay…

Cr P C

Criminal Law — Sentencing — Modification of Sentence — Conversion of life imprisonment to a fixed term is not considered an enhancement of sentence, thus not requiring a notice under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially when the fixed term is not less than what was imposed by modifying a life sentence.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 558 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNNA MOYUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ( Before : K. V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.2686…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of FIR/Charge Sheet — Abuse of process of law — Repeated closure reports indicating civil dispute, subsequent investigation without Magistrate’s approval, and lack of clear evidence of criminal intent warrant quashing of proceedings.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 561 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALINISWAMY VEERARAJA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 510 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSANTA KUMAR DALEI @ SUSANTA KUMAR DALAI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA (VIGILANCE) ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale,…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.

Jul 7, 2026 sclaw

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

Category: Cr P C

You missed