Supreme Court of India Judgements

46635 Judgements hosted as on 02/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Criminal Law – ‘History Sheet’ – The appellant challenged the inclusion of his minor children’s details in a ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’ in the police records – The primary issue was the inclusion of innocent family members, particularly minors, in the ‘History Sheet’ without any adverse material against them – The appellant argued for the quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’, emphasizing the lack of evidence against his minor children – The Delhi Police agreed to revisit the rules to ensure the dignity and privacy of innocent individuals are not compromised – The court modified the impugned judgment, directing the amended Standing Order to be applied to the appellant’s case and designating a senior officer to audit ‘History Sheets’ – The court recognized the need to protect the identity of minors and ensure that ‘History Sheets’ do not unfairly target innocent individuals – The judgment referenced the Juvenile Justice Act and the prohibition on disclosing the identity of minors, emphasizing the need for police to adhere to these provisions – The court concluded by expanding the scope of the proceedings to address potential biases in police practices and directed all states and union territories to consider amendments similar to the ‘Delhi Model’.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 383 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMANATULLAH KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and K.V.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 – Murder of Wife – The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt – The court pointed out that the incident occurred inside the appellant’s house, and the deceased was found in a pool of blood- The court also noted that the appellant failed to disclose the involvement of any unknown intruders to the police – The court rejected the defence’s argument that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, stating that the appellant took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner.- The court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person who claims to have special knowledge of the facts.The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the court found the appellant guilty of murder – False Explanation – The appellant’s false explanation regarding the incident was considered an additional incriminating circumstance.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 368 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANEES — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.R. VIJAYARAMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar…

I P C

“High Court’s Order Quashing Dowry Harassment Case Partially Overturned by Supreme Court: Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues Analyzed” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Jurisdiction – The appellant challenges the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against respondents for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act due to alleged dowry harassment – The appeal raises questions about the correctness of the High Court’s order based on non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., omnibus allegations, and jurisdiction of the Jamshedpur court – The appellant contends that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, arguing that the complaint discloses offenses and the Jamshedpur court has jurisdiction – Respondents support the High Court’s decision, arguing that the arrests were made without due process, the Jamshedpur court lacks jurisdiction, and the complaint contains general allegations – The Supreme Court partly allows the appeal, setting aside the quashing order against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8, while upholding it for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 – The Court finds that the allegations against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8 are specific enough to warrant investigation, and the Jamshedpur court has jurisdiction as the appellant resides there – The Court emphasizes that quashing proceedings requires careful consideration and cannot be based on a mini trial or premature merits assessment – The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates proceedings against certain respondents and clarifies jurisdictional and procedural aspects of the case.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 357 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYANKA JAISWAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and…

I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR — Appellant Vs. SHARMILA DAS AND OTHERS ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 346 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

I P C

“Sudden Fight, Not Murderous Intent: Supreme Court Reclassifies Conviction, Reduces Sentenc” Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 304 – The appeal challenges the High Court’s decision to uphold the appellant’s conviction for murder, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 can be converted to Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The appellant argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and there was no intention to cause death, suggesting the offense falls under Section 304 – The respondent-State maintained that the concurrent findings of the courts below were correct and warranted no interference – The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine – The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruelty by the appellant – The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction to Part I of Section 304 with a reduced sentence and fine, considering the time already served by the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 338 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. AHSAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAYA GOPINATHAN — Appellant Vs. ANOOP S.B. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…

I P C

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 22(3) – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 43D – The case involves the State of West Bengal appealing against a High Court judgment that quashed UAPA proceedings against the respondent due to jurisdiction issues – The Court reasoned that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act since the State had not constituted a Special Court – The Court discussed the modified application of Section 167 CrPC under Section 43D of UAPA and the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA. – The Supreme Court concluded that the City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order adding UAPA offences and permitted the continuation of the trial.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 313 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Appellant Vs. JAYEETA DAS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Cr P C I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 342, 323, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) , 190 (1)(b) and 200 – Protest Petition – Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint, proceeding according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C – The Court’s reasoning focused on the proper procedure for taking cognizance of an offence and the treatment of a Protest Petition when additional affidavits are filed – The conclusion emphasizes the Magistrate’s liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and the need to follow due process – The judicial opinion clarified the legal position regarding the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a closure report from the Investigating Officer.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 316 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKHTAR ZAIDI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw
Advocates Act Constitution

In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420 — Passports Act, 1967 — Section 12(2) — The appellant was convicted for abetting the issuance of a second passport to a person already possessing a passport — The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted appellant due to insufficient evidence proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires each circumstance to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances taken together should lead to an irresistible inference of guilt — Under Section 12(2), the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information with the intent to secure a passport or travel document — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted appellant of the offences alleged against her.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) —Dispute over a contractual agreement — The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available —The petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract —The respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions —The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract —The court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms —The court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement —The court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw