Supreme Court of India Judgements

46755 Judgements hosted as on 29/03/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Registration of FIR — Mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if information discloses commission of a cognizable offense; no preliminary inquiry permissible in such cases.
In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings
Cr P C
In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings
Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served
I P C
Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served
Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances
I P C
Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.31— Appeal from original decree-­Speaking Order—Held; Judgment of the appellate court has to state the reasons for the decision—It is necessary to make it clear that the approach of the first appellate court while affirming the judgment of the trial Court and reversing the same is founded on different parameters

Mar 18, 2018 sclaw

(2017) 177 AIC 26 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 3591 : (2017) AIR(SC) 3591 : (2017) AllSCR 1828 : (2017) 124 ALR 585 : (2017) 3 ARC 8 : (2017) 3 CGLJ…

Cheque Dishonour

CHEQUE DISHONOUR — PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED “………..issue of hardship caused in personal attendance by an accused particularly where accused is located far away from the jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint is filed. HELD that even in absence of accused, evidence can be recorded in presence of counsel under Section 273 Cr.P.C. and Section 317 Cr.P.C. permitted trial to be held in absence of accused. Section 205 Cr.P.C. specifically enabled the Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance. Having regard to the nature of offence under Section 138, this Court held that the Magistrates ought to consider exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to relieve accused of the hardship without prejudice to the prosecution proceedings. “

Mar 14, 2018 sclaw

    CHEQUE DISHONOUR — PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED    “………..issue of hardship caused in personal attendance by an accused particularly where accused is located far away from the jurisdiction of…

You missed

Cr P C

In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings

Mar 29, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw