Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

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…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420,120B and 34 – Territorial jurisdiction for the FIR -The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, concluding that the matter was civil, not criminal, and that Arunachal Pradesh lacked territorial jurisdiction – The Court found no evidence of a cognizable offence and deemed the dispute to be of a civil nature, suitable for resolution in a civil court – The Court applied the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal complaints unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent or action – The FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed, with the Court questioning why the State of Arunachal Pradesh pursued the case when the complainant did not challenge the Rajasthan High Court’s order.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 317 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 30 – Court found the eyewitnesses’ testimonies reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, dismissing the trivial contradictions raised by the appellant – The Court upheld the conviction based on the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the medical jurist’s testimony, despite the appellant’s claims of a fabricated case – The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned judgments were without infirmity and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 308 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

You missed

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw