Cr P C Archives - Page 12 of 48 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

April 20, 2024 12:22 pm

HELD High Court has quashed the final report without adverting to either the facts or law by a cryptic order, it would be appropriate for us to set aside the order and restore the petition to the file to the High Cour

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M.P. RAMANI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor.

Aug 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., J.K. Maheshwari…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 – Power to summon – In terms of Section 311 of the CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar.

Aug 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VARSHA GARG — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and AS Bopanna,…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Section 482 – At the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible – Order of quashing criminal proceedings is unsustainable.

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AKHIL SHARDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Section 374(2) – Appeal against conviction – Appeal was already admitted – No ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits.

Jul 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DHANANJAY RAI @ GUDDU RAI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 31 leaves full discretion with the court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances – If the court does not order the sentence to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the other,

Jul 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MALKEET SINGH GILL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Bail canceled – Apprehension of the appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance – Considering the nature and gravity of the offence

Jun 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MAMTA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Bela…

Cr P C

Double jeopardy – Article 20(2) – Section 300 Cr PC – – Accused having gone through the trial in relation to offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts

Jun 25, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MS. P[1] XXX — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

While quashing the criminal proceedings “No useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case” cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings

May 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SATISH KUMAR JATAV — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Cr P C

Pre-mature release policy applicable in state where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred.

May 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RADHESHYAM BHAGWANDAS SHAH @ LALA VAKIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath,…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

Category: Cr P C

You missed