Judgement Gallery

Home – Judgement Gallery

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 55057/2024 N. ESWARANATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE APRIL 17, 2025 “Apology Not Enough? SC Imposes Costs on Advocate for Vexatious Litigation” Advocate Muthukrishnan was fined ₹1 lakh for filing a second SLP despite the first being dismissed.
    The Court emphasized: – Strict compliance with Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is mandatory. Repetitive petitions are discouraged. – Misleading the Court or suppression of facts invites contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. – Precedents like Mohit Chaudhary and Bhagwan Singh highlight zero tolerance for fraud on the Court. – However, genuine remorse may be considered a mitigating factor, as per Justice Sharma’s remarks. The judgment reiterates the ethical obligations of advocates and the importance of transparency while litigating in the Apex Court.
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4171 OF 2024 ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. APRIL 02, 2025
    Reaffirmed that once the drawer admits to signing the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) cannot be rebutted merely by questioning the complainant’s debt-giving capacity, especially when such a defence was not raised in the reply notice by the accused.

    “The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as a loan to the accused, only then the complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced the amount in question by way of loan.”, the court observed.
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VIJAY PAL YADAV VERSUS MAMTA SINGH AND ORS. & ORS Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20330/2023 Date : 26-03-2025 Issued a stern warning to the police personnel of all States and Union Territories against the violation of the norms regarding arrest. The Court warned that officers who flout the arrest guidelines will face strict action. A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dealing with a case, where the petitioner alleged that he was arrested by the Haryana police in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was subjected to physical abuse both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 6320 OF 2024) JAMIN & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 6th March, 2025. Quashes Summoning of Accused 13 Years After Trial Conclusion, Trial Court Became ‘Functus Officio,’ Cannot Summon Accused Post-Conviction
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Landmark Judgement on Fraud and Fraudsters
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
    Landmark judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding fraud and fraudsters, whereby the Apex Court laid down specific guidelines in handling cases involving fraud.
  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 438 OF 2018 S.C. GARG VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. APRIL 16, 2025
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
    Join our Legal Updates WhatsApp Group
    Join our Facebook Group for Discussions
    Supreme Court Upholds Res Judicata in Criminal Matters, Quashes Fraud Case Against S.C. Garg, Highlights the binding precedent from Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415) and Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor (1950 AC 458), reaffirming its applicability over later two-judge bench decisions like Devendra v. State of U.P (2009) 7 SCC 495. Act: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
  • “HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8 April 2025 Pronounced on: 15 April 2025 FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025, CAV 106/2025, CM APPL.16177/2025, CM APPL. 16178/2025 & CM APPL. 16179/2025 AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED
    Phonographic Performance Limited cannot be permitted to issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its repertoire without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society. “We, therefore, are unable to accept the principle that PPL was entitled, without either registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society, to issue licenses in respect of the sound recordings assigned to it under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act,” a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said.”
    Click here to obtain said Judgment
  • “The Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of A6 in Coir Mat Dispute Murder Case, Relies on State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999)” Highlights the court’s scrutiny of evidence despite suspect investigation, following the precedent set in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715.
    Act: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.)”
    Click here to obtain said Judgment

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2020
    WAHID
    VERSUS
    STATE
    Emphasizing the need for meticulous examination in cases involving unidentified accused, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of two individuals in a case for bus robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.

    “In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”, the court observed.

  • THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
    (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7712 OF 2022)
    RAVI Vs THE STATE

    The Supreme Court Acquits Ravi in Wife’s Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence

    In the case of Ravi vs. The State of Punjab, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his first wife, Jamni, by strangulation. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the post-mortem report suggesting asphyxia due to hanging. However, key witnesses turned hostile, and the doctor’s testimony raised doubts about the cause of death, mentioning chronic tuberculosis as a possibility. The prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying principles of circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and ordered the appellant’s release from custody after over ten years of imprisonment.

  • Mens rea and strict liability under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

    https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUr

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share

    Introduction

    To decide upon any criminal liability, it is imperative to look at whether concepts of mens rea, mistake of fact, and strict liability are applicable in the case or not. These rules help us to have a glimpse into the offender’s state of mind at the time of offence. In this article, we’ll study these legal principles in light of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), checking how they work and when there are exceptions under these concepts.

    Mistake of Fact:

    Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with the “Mistake of Fact.” It states that an act committed by a person in a state of intoxication or by mistake of fact, believing himself to be justified by law, is not an offense unless the act would be an offense if the person were not intoxicated and aware of the real facts. This section acknowledges that genuine mistakes, induced by factors like intoxication or misapprehension, may mitigate criminal liability, hence we can see that mens rea and presence of guilt mind is a key issue here as mistake of fact signifies lower level of mens rea.

    It should be noted that the BNS distinguishes between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. While a mistake in doing a lawful act may not incur criminal liability, a clear wrongdoing, even under a mistaken apprehension, may result in criminal charges.

    Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat:

    The maxim “Ignorantia juris non excusat” emphasizes that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from legal consequences. Mistake of law, even when the party has full knowledge of the facts, is not a defense in criminal cases.

    Mens Rea:

    The doctrine of mens rea, denoting a guilty intention, is a crucial element in criminal laws across the world. The BNS incorporates mens rea through specific terms such as “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “voluntarily,” “fraudulently,” and “dishonestly.” The state of mind required extends to all aspects of an act, including the act or omission, circumstances, and consequences.

    Application of Mens Rea in Statutory Crimes:

    Halsbury’s Laws of England and legal authorities highlight that mens rea is presumed to be an essential element in every offense unless displaced by the words of the statute or the subject matter it deals with.

    Various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deal with the concept of Mens Area:
    https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUr

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share

    1. Section 100 BNS – Culpable Homicide:

    This section outlines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It requires the accused to have the mens rea, indicating an intention to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death.

    2. Section 101 BNS – Murder:

    Section 101 of BNS defines murder and specifies the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder. It distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide, largely based on mens rea.

    3. Section 3 BNS – Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention:

    This section deals with cases where several persons act together to commit an offense. It emphasizes the shared intention or mens rea among the individuals involved.

    4. Section 61 BNS- Criminal Conspiracy:

    Section 61 addresses criminal conspiracy, requiring an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offense. The agreement implies a shared mens rea to engage in unlawful activities.

    Strict Liability and Exceptions:

    The concept of strict liability involves offenses where mens rea is not an essential element. This includes offenses related to public health, safety, and social welfare. Specific sections in the BNS, such as 147 BNS and 137 BNS establish strict liability. If the offence has traces of strict liability, the offenders may be penalized even without a guilty mind.

    Section 106 of BNS – Causing Death by Negligence:

    Section 106 of the BNS is an example of strict liability. It deals with causing death by negligence, and the focus is on the negligent act itself rather than the intention behind it. Even without a mens rea to cause death, if death results from a negligent act, the offender can be held criminally liable.

    Section 138 of NI Act – Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments:

    In the context of strict liability, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with offenses related to dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. The emphasis is on the act itself, and the accused can be held liable irrespective of the intention behind issuing the cheque.

    In the cases of Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, Supreme Court held that unless a statute explicitly rules out mens rea, a person should not be found guilty without a guilty mind.

    FAQs on mens rea and strict liability under BNS:
    https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUr

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share

    1. What is Mens Rea, and how is it incorporated in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

    Mens Rea, denoting a guilty intention, is crucial in criminal law. BNS incorporates mens rea through terms like “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “voluntarily,” “fraudulently,” and “dishonestly” across various sections, emphasizing the state of mind in all aspects of an act.

    2. How is Mens Rea applied in specific crimes under BNS?

    Sections like 100 (Culpable Homicide), 101 (Murder), 3 (Acts Done by Several Persons), and 61 (Criminal Conspiracy) of BNS outline the application of mens rea in different offenses, requiring an intentional state of mind.

    3. What is Strict Liability, and are there exceptions in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

    Strict liability in BNS involves offenses where mens rea is not essential. Sections like 147, 152A, and 137 establish strict liability, especially in cases related to public health, safety, and social welfare.

    4. Can you provide examples of Strict Liability under BNS?

    Sections 106 (Causing Death by Negligence) and 138 (Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments) illustrate strict liability under BNS, where the focus is on the act itself, regardless of the intention behind it.

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6898 of 2023)
    SUNEETI TOTEJA
    VERSUS
    STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER
    FEBRUARY 25, 2025.
    https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUr

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share

    While quashing a case against the public servant due to lack of prior sanction, the Supreme Court observed that the failure of the sanctioning authority to provide sanction within the stipulated time would not make the sanction a ‘deemed sanction’ because such a concept doesn’t exist under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

    “Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction,” the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2025

      (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11042 of 2022)

      PUNIT BERIWALA

     VERSUS

     THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

     April 28, 2025;

     Supreme Court revives FIR in Rs 28 Crore property fraud case, reinstates criminal proceedings against HUF members for cheating and forgery.

     Decision:

     The Supreme Court revived the FIR for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the    allegations in the complaint/FIR, if believed, disclose cognizable offences and warrant investigation. The matter was remanded for investigation to proceed against all accused. The Court emphasized that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing an FIR in cases involving cognizable offences and that delay in lodging the FIR, in this context, is not sufficient to quash the proceedings.

Act(s) Involved:

                •             Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 420

Click here to get Judgement

  • Riot and Affray under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

    *This article will focus on the legal implications of rioting and affray under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), detailing on their definitions, essentials, and punishments

    Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly in pursuit of a common unlawful objective. To establish an offence under this section, it is important to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly, the use of force or violence, and the commission of an offence.

    Essentials of Rioting:

    The core elements of rioting under Section 191(1) of BNS include the formation of an unlawful assembly with five or more members, a shared unlawful objective, the use of force or violence, and the connection between force used and the common objective.

    Punishment for Committing Riot with Deadly Weapon:

    Section 191(3) of BNS also talks about aggravated form of rioting when a deadly weapon is involved. It mandates enhanced punishment for individuals armed with deadly weapons during rioting. This is a key distinction between Section 191(1) of BNS and Section 191(3) of BNS

    Provoking Riot:

    Section 192 of BNS deals with provocation leading to rioting. It penalizes individuals who, through illegal acts, provoke others to commit rioting. The section considers both the occurrence and non-occurrence of rioting, prescribing different punishments accordingly.

    Constructive Liability:

    Section 193 of BNS addresses the constructive liability of landowners or occupiers when an unlawful assembly or riot takes place on their premises.

    – Affray: Involves two or more individuals engaged in a fight

    – Riot: Mandates a common unlawful object shared by the members of the unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 189 of the BNS.

    – Affray: Focuses on the disturbance of public peace resulting from the physical altercation between the individuals, with no requirement for a shared common objec

    – Riot: Generally involves premeditated actions, with the members of the unlawful assembly planning and executing their common objective.

    – Affray: Can be sudden and unpremeditated, occurring spontaneously in a public place without prior planning.

    – Riot: Implies a coordinated effort by the members of the unlawful assembly to use force or violence in pursuit of their common objective.

        Click here to get judgement 

  • In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court explained the tests to determine if there was a manufacturing process involved.

      Click here to get judgement

  • The courts have observed that the court proceedings ought not to be permitted to de-generate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. The courts must quash the proceedings in such cases at the earliest particularly when our subordinate courts are under extremely heavy pressure of workload.

     

    1. The courts must always keep in view that courts exist for advancement of justice. If any attempt is made to abuse or that authority, so as to produce injustice, the Court must have the power to prevent that abuse. The courts exist only to promote justice and to prevent injustice.

      Click here to get judgement

  • Know more about Common High Court for Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.Previsus

    (1) On and from the appointed day,—
    (a) the High Court of Assam and Nagaland shall cease to function and is hereby abolished;
    (b) there shall be a common High Court for the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura to be called the Gauhati High Court (the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura);
    (c) the Judges of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland holding office immediately before that day shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become on that day the Judges of the common High Court:
    1 [Provided that on and from the commencement of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, the common High Court shall be the High Court for the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland and shall cease to have its jurisdiction, powers and authority for the States of Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.]
    (2) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall prejudice or affect the continued operation of any notice served, injunction issued, direction given or proceedings taken before the appointed day by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland under the powers then conferred upon that Court.

     

    1. The proviso ins. by Act 26 of 2012, s. 3 (w.e.f. 23-3-2013)

  • He held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Judge held that this case was falling under the category of rarest of the rare cases and proceeded to award capital punishment.

       Click here to get judgement

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    Civil Appeal No. __ / 2025

    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 28062 / 2024)

    Cryogas Equipment Private Limited

    versus

    Inox India Limited and Others

    DATED: 15.04.2025

    “Landmark IP Ruling: SC Sets Two-Pronged Test for Copyright vs. Design Protection, Citing Bharat Glass and Star Athletica”*

    • Emphasizes the new two-pronged test (paragraph 60) and references Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 657 and Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc (2017) for functional utility and conceptual separability.

    Act  Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

       Click here to get judgement

  • Statement means something that someone says or writes
    which gives information in a definite way on a particular
    matter or issue. BNSS

       Click here to get judgement

  • Judicial Officers Acting In Official Capacity Cannot Be Prosecuted Unless Malafide Is Apparent click here to get Judgment

       Click here to get judgement

  • Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 April, 2025

       Click here to get judgement

  • SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    Civil Appeal No. __ / 2025
    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 28062 / 2024)
    Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
    versus
    Inox India Limited and Others
    DATED: 15.04.2025
    “Landmark IP Ruling: SC Sets Two-Pronged Test for Copyright vs. Design Protection, Citing Bharat Glass and Star Athletica”*
    • Emphasizes the new two-pronged test (paragraph 60) and references Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 657 and Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc (2017) for functional utility and conceptual separability.
    Act Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

     

       Click here to get judgement

  • Reaffirming foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to fill material gaps in the prosecution case unless the foundational facts necessary to shift the onus are first firmly established.

       Click here to get judgement

  • An accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.

    Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.

       Click here to get judgement

  • Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree, Orders Additional Payment in Land Dispute.

    The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of a 2001 land sale agreement, directing the plaintiffs to pay an additional ₹25,00,000/- to the seller. It declared subsequent sale deeds null and void due to fraud and collusion.

    Act:
    Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property Act, 1882

       Click here to get judgement

  • Restores Ejectment Decree: Landlord Wins as “ND” Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice.

    *The Supreme Court ruled that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sent via registered post but returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement, is deemed legally served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s ejectment decree in favor of the landlord.*Click here to get Judgment

       Click here to get judgement

  • In any case, the circumstances established are so patent and most of them are even accepted by the accused, that latches of the investigation, if any, have little bearing on their proof. The truthfulness of the evidence leading to them cannot, therefore, be questioned for any such reason

       Click here to get judgement

  • Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how.

       Click here to get judgement

  • In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] (SCC para 39 : AIR para.

       Click here to get judgement

  • Supreme Court: Court Of Session Can Summon Person To Stand Trial Even If He Isn’t Charge-Sheeted & Whose Complexity In Crime Appears In Evidence On Record.

       Click here to get judgement

  • Court held that there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narcoanalysis test. The court has also held that, “The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage”.

       Click here to get judgement

  • The complaints mostly alleged that the petitioner and his company misappropriated money advanced by the intending purchaser of flats/apartments promised to be constructed by the petitioner’s company. As per writ petition as many as 61 FIRs were filed in different police stations.7 Feb 2025.

       Click here to get judgement

  • Once the appellant surrenders and is taken in judicial custody, it shall be open for him to file a fresh regular bail application before the Court concerned and such bail application shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law.

       Click here to get judgement

  • “Once it is clearly discernible from the allegations made in the complaint that the act of the accused falls within the General Exceptions, there is no need to wait for submission of proof on behalf of the accused so as to bring his case within the purview of General Exceptions”, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while quashing a FIR against a group of revenue officials.

       Click here to get judgement

  • Police Has No Unbridled Power To Open History-Sheet On Likes Or Dislikes; Cogent Material Required For Reasonable Suspicion: Allahabad High Court

       Click here to get judgement

  • Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed.

       Click here to get judgement

  • HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

    Held that Sessions Courts cannot ask accused seeking anticipatory bail to approach the police for relief under Section 41A of the CrPC/Section 35 BNSS

       Click here to get judgement

  • Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs State of UP” refers to a Supreme Court of India case where Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani challenged a summoning order issued by the High Court of Allahabad for an offense of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. Kesarwani argued that the complaint was an abuse of process, but the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the summoning order. The Court emphasized the distinction between rape and consensual sex, noting that a promise of marriage must be carefully examined to determine if it was a pretext to satisfy lust or if there was a genuine intent to

       Click here to get judgement

Scroll to Top