Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law

GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

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

  • Charge framing
  • Fir quashing
  • Offences under sc/st act ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
  • Section 506 ipc
  • Section 34 ipc
  • Place within public view
Read case analysis
Criminal law

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus BALJEET SINGH

The acquittal of A2 by the High Court was set aside and the trial court conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 restored because the pre-trap proceedings, testimony of the complainant (PW1), corroboration by the Trap Laying Officer (PW22) and independent witnesses (PW10, PW18), the recovery of the marked notes matching the Handing Over Memo, and the phenolphthalein/hand-wash test together established acceptance by A2 beyond reasonable doubt; however, conspiracy under Section 120B IPC as against A1 and A2 was not established and A1 remained unconvicted; the sentenc…

Source excerpt

  • Corruption
  • Criminal conspiracy
  • Demand and acceptance of bribe
  • Trap proceedings
  • Phenolphthalein/hand-wash test
  • Corroboration of witnesses
Read case analysis
Prevention of money-laundering act, 2002

M/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGH versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND

Where a confirmation order under Section 8(3) PMLA is challenged and pending before the Appellate Tribunal (or other higher forum), the Special Court must refrain from disposing of an application under Section 8(7) PMLA because Section 8(7) presupposes a confirmation order that has attained finality; the Special Court's decision allowing Section 8(7) while an appeal under Section 26 was pending was legally impermissible and is set aside, with the Appellate Tribunal directed to decide the pending appeal on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Section 8(7) pmla
  • Section 8(8) pmla
  • Section 8(3) pmla
  • Section 26 pmla
  • Doctrine of merger
  • Finality of confirmation order
Read case analysis
Companies act, 2013

YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Because s.448 makes a person liable under s.447 and s.447 is an offence 'covered under Section 447' in s.212(6), the second proviso to s.212(6) prevents the Special Court from taking cognizance of offences under s.448 (and consequently s.451) on a private complaint unless the statutory pre-condition (complaint by Director SFIO or authorised Central Government officer) is met; therefore the Special Court's cognizance and all consequential proceedings insofar as they relate to ss.448 and 451 are quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 447 companies act
  • Section 448 companies act
  • Section 451 companies act
  • Section 212(6) companies act
  • Section 436(2) companies act
  • Section 482 crpc
Read case analysis
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

On the materials before the JMFC (including prima facie evidence that the E-Stamp Paper used for the Rent Agreement was fake and discrepancies revealed by departmental verification), the JMFC properly applied its mind and was justified in referring the matter to police under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation; the High Court erred in quashing the JMFC order and the impugned High Court orders were set aside and the FIR restored, with directions for expeditious investigation.

Source excerpt

  • Police investigation
  • Judicial magistrate first class
  • Power under section 156(3) crpc
  • Rent agreement
  • E-stamp paper
  • Usage of the term 'further'
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act, 1881

SANKAR PADAM THAPA versus VIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

A Trust is not a juristic person capable of suing or being sued in its own name for the purposes considered; only trustees operate and are liable for acts of the trust, and therefore a complaint under the NI Act is maintainable against the trustee/chairman who signed the cheque without the necessity of making the Trust an accused.

Source excerpt

  • Maintainability of complaint under ni act against trustee
  • Whether a trust is a juristic person or capable of suing or being sued
  • Vicarious liability under section 141, ni act
  • Joinder of necessary parties in ni act complaint
  • Liability of signatory of dishonoured cheque
Read case analysis
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

UNION OF INDIA versus SALEEM KHAN

The High Court was justified in granting bail to accused no.11 because the charges against him related to association with AL-Hind which is not a banned organisation under the UAPA and attending meetings did not amount to a prima facie offence, coupled with prolonged pre-trial custody and delay; the High Court was justified in refusing bail to accused no.20 because the material in the investigation and charge-sheet indicated his involvement with banned terrorist organisations and active assistance to them. The trial is to be expedited and concluded within two years.

Source excerpt

  • Grant of bail
  • Rejection of bail
  • Banned organisations
  • Prima facie offence
  • Expedite the trial
  • Terrorist organisations
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M.C. RAVIKUMAR versus D.S. VELMURUGAN & ORS.

The High Court erred in allowing the second quashing petition because the petition raised no new grounds or change in circumstances that were not available at the time of the first quashing petition; the second petition in effect amounted to an impermissible review of a co-ordinate bench's earlier order, which is barred by Section 362 CrPC; accordingly the High Court's order dated 13.09.2022 was quashed and set aside and the criminal complaint restored.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal complaint
  • Section 482 crpc
  • Inherent jurisdiction of high court
  • Repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction
  • Section 362 crpc
  • Abuse of process
Read case analysis
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAG versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

The Court found no prima facie material to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the appellant, noted inherent and irreconcilable contradictions and omissions between FIR No.751 of 2021 and FIR No.103 of 2022, relied on additional material (including chats and prior similar complaint) showing manipulative and vindictive tendencies of the de-facto complainant, and concluded that permitting prosecution on FIR No.103 of 2022 would be a travesty of justice and abuse of process; accordingly both FIRs and consequent proceedings were…

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • False promise of marriage
  • Sexual offences
  • Contradictory firs
  • Abuse of process
Read case analysis
Indian penal code, 1860

SAKHAWAT AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Where three of four material eyewitnesses had admittedly filed affidavits during bail proceedings exonerating the appellants and the Investigating Officer failed to file counter-affidavits or to carry out further investigation (including not recording supplementary statements or sending affidavits for expert examination), and the prosecution suppressed those affidavits, the prosecution failed to carry out a fair investigation; in those circumstances it was unsafe to uphold convictions based largely on the testimony of the informant, and the convictions were set aside and appellants acquitted.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Fair investigation
  • Affidavits by eyewitnesses
  • Suppression of evidence
  • Bail
  • Life imprisonment
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.