Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate need not record evidence under Section 244 CrPC when the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
The Supreme Court held that non-filing of अतिरिक्त copies of a charge-sheet under BNSS s.193(8) does not entitle an accused to default bail if the charge-sheet itself was filed in time.
Supreme Court held that Rule 7A required disclosure of a candidate’s spouse’s properties too, and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance.
The Supreme Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS requires an opportunity of hearing before cognizance, and non-compliance vitiates the order.
The Court held that the charges under ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act and under Section 506 r/w Section 34 IPC were unsustainable because the FIR and chargesheet showed the alleged abuses and threats occurred within the four walls of a residential house without public gaze or independent public witnesses, and there was no sufficient averment of intent to cause alarm or of common intention; accordingly the FIR No.42 of 2021 and the charge-sheet were quashed and the impugned orders set aside.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct registration of an FIR when efficacious and sequential statutory remedies under the BNSS/CrPC were available and had not been exhausted; the writ petition was premature, the impugned interim order was set aside and FIR No.0194/2025 was quashed, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
Source excerpt
Because many allegations in the present and earlier split prosecutions overlap, the appellant had already undergone substantial custodial incarceration (more than ten months in the present case and over four years in the earlier case whose sentence was suspended by this Court), and substantial assets have been attached/confiscated, this Court suspended the substantive sentence and granted bail in the present appeal subject to conditions (including an undertaking to assist restoration of tribal land), while directing that the High Court should examine the issue of overlapping prosecutions in t…
Source excerpt
The period of limitation under Section 468, CrPC must be reckoned from the date of filing the complaint or the date of initiation of criminal proceedings (including the date of filing an FIR), and not from the date on which the Magistrate or Court takes cognizance; therefore the High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the ground that cognizance was taken after the limitation period.
Source excerpt
The appeals were allowed and the chargesheet as to appellant Nos.1,2 and 3 was quashed because the FIR and material, when read with the uncontroverted CCTV footage collected during investigation, do not prima facie disclose offences against these appellants; the footage shows they were not present during the alleged assault and only sought to pacify matters; the allegations are vague and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, satisfying the Bhajan Lal categories and the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, thereby justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash.
Source excerpt
The Medical Board concluded that orchidectomy was an appropriate and recognized alternative in the clinical circumstances and the consent form on record showed 'Bilateral Orchidopexy/Orchidectomy' (a slash indicating both options); there was no material showing interpolation by different ink or hand and no malice attributed to the doctor; continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the court's process and, to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings were therefore quashed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
