Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

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. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 – The appellant challenges the quashing of an FIR against seven accused persons for forging a power of attorney and a sale deed of his land by the High Court of Jharkhand – The Supreme Court allows the appeal and restores the FIR and the consequent case to the trial court, finding the High Court’s exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unjustified and unsustainable – The Supreme Court holds that the High Court erred in assuming that there was no criminality involved in the alleged offences and that the matter was purely civil in nature – The Supreme Court also clarifies that the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate prosecution under the Registration Act, 1908, and that the quashing of the circular on which the Sub-Registrar relied did not affect the merits of the case.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN KUMAR RAI — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw