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

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Because the allegations against the appellants were, in substance, identical to those against the sister-in-law and were general and omnibus without any specific overt acts attributed to the appellants, and because of the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint which lent credence to the contention of a counter-blast to earlier divorce proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants could not be sustained and therefore those proceedings were to be quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Anticipatory bail
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Dowry demands
  • Delay in lodging fir
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

OM PRAKASH YADAV versus NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.

On the materials before the Court, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC; where a police official is alleged to have lodged a bogus FIR and fabricated evidence there is no reasonable nexus with official duty so as to attract Section 197; respondent no.1 was not posted at the Murar Police Station at the relevant time and thus sanction was not required as to him; as to respondent nos.3,4,5, if prosecution proves they registered a false case they cannot claim protection under Section 197, but the defence must be given opportunity to rebut; t…

Source excerpt

  • Section 197 crpc
  • Sanction for prosecution
  • Bogus fir
  • Quashing of proceedings
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M N G BHARATEESH REDDY versus RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER

On the face of the complaint the ingredients of cheating (Sections 415 and 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC) are not made out because the complaint lacks allegations of deception or dishonest intention, and there is no prima facie case of entrustment of property; the allegations at most disclose a civil dispute/breach of contract, therefore the High Court erred in holding cognizance was correctly taken and the Additional Sessions Judge's order setting aside cognizance is to be restored.

Source excerpt

  • Cheating under section 415 ipc
  • Criminal breach of trust under section 405 ipc
  • Defamation
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Distinction between civil breach of contract and criminal offence
Read case analysis
Criminal law

BALVEER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Once the Magistrate has applied his mind and rejected cognizance against certain accused, and committed the case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court is not empowered to take fresh cognizance as court of original jurisdiction for the same offence against those accused; any such order is normally not permissible. However, as proper opportunity was given and Sessions Court acted within its revisional jurisdiction, Supreme Court declined to interfere.

Source excerpt

  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Cognizance by sessions court
  • Committal proceedings
  • Dowry death
  • Abetment of suicide
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MEHMOOD UL REHMAN versus KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS.

Absence of sufficient indication of the Magistrate's application of mind when issuing process under Sections 190(1)(a) and 204 of CrPC requires the order to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.

Source excerpt

  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Issue of process
  • Application of mind
  • Quashing proceedings
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

GEORGE BHAKTAN versus RABINDRA LELE & ORS.

The High Court erred in quashing the Magistrate's order of cognizance solely on the legal principle from Gopalakrishna Menon, which is no longer good law; the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah holds that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC applies only when the alleged forgery occurs after the document is produced in court. As there was no such allegation, the prohibition was not attracted, and the High Court's order is set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Section 195(1)(b)(ii) crpc
  • Prosecution of offences relating to forged documents
  • Quashing of proceedings under section 482 crpc
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Production of forged document in civil proceedings
Read case analysis
Criminal law

B. CHANDRIKA versus SANTHOSH & ANR

No offence was made out against the second accused because money was not entrusted to her, she was separated from the first accused at the relevant time, and is the divorced wife of the first accused. The Magistrate failed to consider this crucial aspect when issuing summons. Summons against the second accused are quashed; proceedings may continue against the first accused.

Source excerpt

  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Protest petition
  • Quashing of summons
  • Section 420 ipc
  • Section 34 ipc
  • Divorce and criminal liability
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MOTI LAL SONGARA versus PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU AND ANR.

The Magistrate's cognizance was valid under s.190(1)(b) CrPC based on facts from the informant, not merely reliant on police report; suppression of fact regarding framing of charges constituted fraud on the court, justifying setting aside orders obtained on that basis and invoking Article 142 for complete justice.

Source excerpt

  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Suppression of facts
  • Fraud on court
  • Framing of charges
  • Quashment of summons
  • Article 142 of constitution
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MADHAO AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Any Judicial Magistrate before taking cognizance of an offence can order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; in this case, the Magistrate did not exceed his power nor violate any provision of CrPC, and the procedure adopted was in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Police investigation under section 156(3) crpc
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Quashing of prosecution under section 482 crpc
Read case analysis
Criminal law

NUPUR TALWAR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

The Review Petition was dismissed as uncalled for; the petitioner did not point out any error in the Supreme Court’s earlier order, but sought to challenge the Magistrate’s order, which amounts to misuse of jurisdiction. The Magistrate’s order issuing process was justified as sufficient material existed, and the standard of scrutiny at the stage of issue of process differs from that at trial. There is no scope for further investigation since that plea was not pressed before High Court and had attained finality.

Source excerpt

  • Issue of process
  • Review jurisdiction
  • Double murder
  • Cognizance by magistrate
  • Frivolous litigation
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.