Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 417, 418, 420, 422, 120(B), 403, 406, 420 and 506(B) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Though the contract is of civil nature, if there is an element of cheating and fraud it is always open for a party in a contract, to prosecute the other side for the offences alleged. Equally, mere filing of a suit or complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 by itself is no ground to quash the proceedings. Appeal allowed

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. LAKSHMAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

I P C

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 112, 132(1)(c), 133, 134, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 208, 208(3), 209 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 5, 279, 304 Part II and 304A IPC -………….we set aside the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court to the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to issue appropriate instructions to their subordinate officers to prosecute offenders in motor vehicle accidents only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not the IPC.

Oct 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH — Appellant Vs. RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv…

I P C

Conviction under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – The appellants were undoubtedly the members of an unlawful assembly some of whom were also armed with spears and assaulted the deceased. All the accused surrounded the deceased obviously to prevent his escape.The fact that the co-accused may have assaulted on the head again cannot be considered very relevant to eschew the absence of common object.

Oct 4, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  FAINUL KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). 937…

I P C

Unlawful assembly and rioting with deadly weapons – Common object – The important ingredients of an unlawful assembly are the number of persons forming it i.e., five; and their common object. Common object of the persons composing that assembly could be formed on the spur of the moment and does not require prior deliberations – Course of conduct adopted by the members of such assembly; their behaviour before, during, and after the incident; and the arms carried by them are a few basic and relevant factors to determine the common object.

Sep 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw