Cr P C Archives - Page 6 of 60 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 29, 2026 5:52 am

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…

Bail Granted Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 — Allegation of rape based on false promise of marriage — Relationship continued for three years; physical relations established multiple times — Complainant, an educated and married woman, engaged in the relationship voluntarily and without protest or complaint until the break-up — Lodging of FIR three months after the last physical contact, subsequent to the appellant refusing a demand for money — Held, the relationship was consensual; physical intimacy in a long-standing, functioning relationship, which later turns acrimonious, cannot be retrospectively branded as rape — Refusal to fulfill a monetary demand led to the institution of criminal proceedings, amounting to an abuse of the court machinery — FIR and Charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 16, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 40, 41)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMADHAN S/O SITATRAM MANMOTHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTHRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 165, 166 — Death allegedly caused by murder inside a motor vehicle — Claim for compensation — Requirement of causal link between death and “use” of motor vehicle — Held, mere presence of a motor vehicle in the chain of circumstances leading to death does not attract liability under MVA — Some nexus between the vehicle and the death must be established.

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw

State Laws

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 — Section 2(25) — “Occupier” — Scope of definition — The MHAD Act defines only “occupier,” which includes any person liable to pay rent, an owner in occupation, a rent-free tenant, a licensee, or one liable to pay damages for use and occupation — Occupancy is not a statutory tenancy dependent on the owner’s will, and even a person in possession without formal rent liability may claim occupancy status for reallotment purposes.

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw

Stamp Act

Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 26, proviso — Mining lease — Stamp duty on instrument with indeterminate value — Determinant of stamp duty — Where value of subject-matter is indeterminate at execution, proviso to S.26 specifically governs mining leases, directing that estimated royalty or value of share, as estimated by the Collector where State is lessor, suffices for stamp duty purposes — Proviso held not inconsistent with main provision — actual value of mining lease is ascertainable only once mining operations commence

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw

Service

Service Law — Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) — Grade Pay convergence — Effect on promotions within cadre — Convergence of Grade Pay pursuant to Sixth Central Pay Commission does not obliterate separate identity of promotional posts within a cadre — Promotions carry promotional increments, enhanced running-duty allowances and post-specific benefits, remaining financially meaningful notwithstanding constancy of Grade Pay.

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw

Category: Cr P C

You missed