Supreme Court of India Judgements

46960 Judgements hosted as on 08/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34) Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44) Contempt of Court — Initiating contempt proceedings — Clear and unequivocal terms of the underlying order — A Contempt Petition can be dismissed summarily only if the underlying order, the non-compliance of which is alleged, is genuinely unclear, ambiguous, or susceptible to two equally reasonable interpretations — Where the High Court dismissed a Contempt Petition holding that the underlying order was capable of two interpretations, but the Supreme Court found, upon reading the order as a whole, that there were clear and categorical directions and recorded statements regarding handing over of possession and payment of compensation, the dismissal of the Contempt Petition was erroneous. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)
Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)
Service
Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)
I P C

Murder– Appreciation of evidence–Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way–There is not set rule of natural reaction–Evidence of witness not be discarded on that ground. Murder—Evidence—Adverse inference should not be drawn against prosecution for non examination of the informant and other material witness.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 664 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No. 744 of…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw