Supreme Court of India Judgements

46720 Judgements hosted as on 05/02/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 193, 376 and 504 — Establishing relations on the false pretext of marriage — Accused was granted bail, which the complainant sought to cancel — Whether the appellant’s denial in his affidavit constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC (false evidence) — Petitioner argue that mere denial of averments does not constitute perjury — The court is not bound to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) unless it is expedient in the interest of justice — Respondent states that the appellant misrepresented facts and continued relations with the complainant despite being engaged to someone else —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to file a complaint against the appellant for perjury —Denial simpliciter does not meet the threshold for perjury — No malafide intention or deliberate attempt was evident from the appellant’s statements —Prosecution for perjury should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances where there is deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance —The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings arising from the High Court’s direction were quashed — The decision does not affect the ongoing criminal case against the appellant.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 601 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMES KUNJWAL @APPELANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 304 Part I and 304 Part II — Murder during a quarrel in family dispute — Modification of sentence — The main issue is whether the conviction should be under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC — The petitioner argued that the incident was a result of self-defence and that the conviction should be set aside — The respondent supported the High Court’s decision and argued for the dismissal of the appeal — The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Part II IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant — The Court noted the emotional state of the young appellant and the non-premeditated nature of the incident — The Court emphasized the heat of the moment and the lack of control over anger leading to the incident — The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 609 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HUSSAINBHAI ASGARALI LOKHANDWALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 389, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 and 120B — Quashing of the summoning order and criminal proceedings — The appellant challenged the High Court of Jharkhand’s decision to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings related to a fraud case — Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the summoning order and criminal proceedings — The appellant argued that the documents submitted by the respondents were forged and that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by quashing the summoning order —The respondents contended that the documents were not forged and that the appellant had ulterior motives — The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision and remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for trial — The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual disputes that should be resolved during the trial — The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing proceedings —The appeals were allowed, and the matter was sent back for trial.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 583 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARAMBEER KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna…

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 530 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRAN JYOT MAINI — Appellant Vs. ANISH PRAMOD PATEL — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishram, JJ.…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967— Section 16 — Sanction for prosecution — The court held that a sanction for prosecution under Section 16 of the Act, 1967, must be based on an independent review of the evidence collected during the course of investigation by the appropriate authority — If the sanction is not based on such a review, it is invalid – while the gravity of the offence and the possibility of tampering with evidence are important considerations, they must be balanced against the accused’s right to liberty — The court must ensure that the accused is not kept in custody for an unreasonable period of time- that a foreign national cannot be denied bail solely on the ground that they are a foreign national — The court must consider other factors, such as the length of time already spent in custody, the likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future, and the accused’s ties to the community – bail conditions cannot be arbitrary or onerous, and they must be consistent with the object of granting bail — The court cannot impose conditions that infringe upon the accused’s right to privacy or that are impossible for the accused to comply with.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 534 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before :…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 494 — Bigamy — The appellant accused his wife (first accused) of committing bigamy by marrying the second accused while their marriage was still valid — The trial court convicted the first and second accused, but the High Court later acquitted them — Whether the High Court was right in not restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court and whether the sentence was too lenient — The Supreme Court modified the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs. 2,000 each — The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to impose adequate punishment for serious offenses like bigamy.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 523 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABA NATARAJAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. M. REVATHI — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 — The appellant, a police guard, was convicted for the murder of his cousin and neighbour, who allegedly had an affair with the appellant’s wife — The murder occurred inside a police station in Delhi —The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, claiming self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation — The appellant argued for self-defence, stating the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon to kill him — The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish a premeditated murder — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence for murder, finding no evidence of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

You missed

Consumer

The complainant contended that the basis of valuation as mentioned in clause-4.3 of the policy was “All exports-CIF + 10%”. This meant that the complainant had an insurable interest in the consignments until they were delivered to the buyer – The insurer argued that the basis of valuation was “FOB” and that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the port of New York – The NCDRC rejected the review application, holding that the complainant had not proved that the basis of valuation was “All exports-CIF + 10%” – The NCDRC also held that the NCDRC had not erred in holding that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the warehouse.

Feb 5, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — The complainant was abused and beaten by the accused, leading to an FIR under various IPC sections —Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant justify framing charges under Section 307 IPC — Petitioner argues that the injuries and the act of throttling indicate an intention to kill, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC — Respondent states that the injuries were minor, and the medical report did not conclusively support the charge of attempt to murder —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC —The intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances and the doctor’s report suggesting the possibility of throttling —The extent of injuries is irrelevant if the intent to cause death is present, as per established legal precedents —The trial court must proceed with charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial should be expedited.

Feb 5, 2025 sclaw
Environment

The polluter is absolutely and continuously liable for environmental damage until the damage is reversed, and the government must enforce environmental laws, ensure compensation, and implement restoration measures.

Feb 4, 2025 sclaw
Labour Cases Municipal Laws

Employers cannot terminate workers during industrial disputes without permission, and workers performing equal duties are entitled to equal pay and potential regularization.

Feb 4, 2025 sclaw