Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

25 Jun 2025 · Sandeep Mehta; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 858

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction of appellants for murder, holding that mere suspicion and inadmissible electronic evidence cannot overturn a well-reasoned acquittal absent proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Acquittal Circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 65-B Evidence Act

KANIZ AHMED v. SABUDDIN & ORS

19 Jun 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 610
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order for eviction and demolition of unauthorized construction, rejecting the petitioner's plea for regularization and emphasizing strict adherence to building regulations and the rule of law.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction regularization demolition building regulations

AMLESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR

09 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Prasanna B. Varale · 2025 INSC 810
Cites 1 · Cited by 11

The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate constitutional rights and cannot be ordered during bail proceedings, and that voluntary tests require safeguards and cannot alone ground conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant narco-analysis test Article 20(3) Constitution Article 21 Constitution right against self-incrimination

DHANYA M v. STATE OF KERALA

06 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Manmohan · 2025 INSC 809

The Supreme Court set aside a preventive detention order against a bail-granted accused, holding that such detention requires a real threat to public order and cannot substitute ordinary criminal remedies.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant preventive detention public order law and order Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007

M/S. BALAJI TRADERS v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

05 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Manoj Misra · 2025 INSC 806
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that Section 387 IPC punishes putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion without requiring actual delivery of property, and quashing of complaint on that ground was erroneous.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 387 IPC extortion quashing Section 482 CrPC

Union of India v. M/S Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd.

05 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 805

The Supreme Court held that under Section 66 of the Railways Act, demand notices for misdeclaration of goods can be validly raised even after delivery, overturning the lower courts' rulings restricting punitive charges to pre-delivery.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railways Act, 1989 Section 66 misdeclaration of goods demand notice

Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar & Ors.

05 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Manoj Misra · 2025 INSC 807
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR without prima facie examination and restored criminal proceedings relating to alleged fraud in a gold loan transaction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR prima facie case fraud and cheating

Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

04 Jun 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 802
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot suo motu convert an acquittal into conviction or enhance sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused, reaffirming the principle of no reformatio in peius.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 306 IPC Section 401 CrPC Section 386 CrPC suo motu revision

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Anupam Garg

04 Jun 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Prasanna B. Varale · 2025 INSC 808

The Supreme Court held that a development authority is liable to refund the amount with contractual interest for delayed possession but not liable to pay interest on loans taken by buyers, limiting compensation to contractual and justifiable heads.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant consumer protection refund interest on loan compensation

Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

04 Jun 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 803

The Supreme Court held that the complaint filed within three years is not time-barred, but quashed the FIR and chargesheet for lack of prima facie evidence of cruelty under section 498A IPC, exercising its power under Article 142 in a matrimonial dispute involving alleged dowry harassment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Limitation period Section 468 CrPC Cognizance

Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra

04 Jun 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 800
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and medical inconsistencies, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder bullet trajectory Indian Evidence Act Section 8

Meenabai v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne

02 Jun 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah · 2025 INSC 795

The Supreme Court held that alienation of land charged to a cooperative society without prior sanction is void only at the society's instance, and a member cannot nullify his own sale deeds to his benefit after the society's charge is released.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 charge on land alienation without sanction void vs voidable

Chetan v. State of Karnataka

30 May 2025 · Surya Kant; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · 2025 INSC 793

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder based on circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, ballistic reports, and recovery of stolen articles, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory murder ballistic evidence

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain

29 May 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 788

The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted to accused in a politically motivated violent attack case, emphasizing the gravity of offences and the need to protect the trial's integrity.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail bail cancellation grave offences political influence

Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.

29 May 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 790

The Supreme Court quashed FIRs alleging sexual offences under false promise of marriage due to lack of prima facie material and contradictions in the complainant's allegations, holding the prosecution to be an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR false promise of marriage Section 376(2)(n) IPC SC/ST(POA) Act

Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan

29 May 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 789
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded to the appellant-wife post-divorce to Rs. 50,000/- per month, emphasizing maintenance must reflect the respondent’s income and the marital standard of living.

family appeal_allowed Significant permanent alimony maintenance divorce mental cruelty

Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

28 May 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 786
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions for verandah construction and eco-friendly parking measures at the Chandigarh High Court, balancing heritage preservation with functional public interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant UNESCO World Heritage Site Chandigarh Capitol Complex verandah construction green paver blocks

N.S. Gnaneshwaran v. The Inspector of Police

28 May 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 787

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against appellants following full settlement of dues through a One Time Settlement, holding that continuation of trial served no useful purpose.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC One Time Settlement quashing of criminal proceedings fraud

Pintu Thakur @ Ravi v. State of Chhattisgarh

27 May 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 797

The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' conviction under the POCSO Act but reduced their life sentence to twenty years considering their age and period of incarceration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act Section 6 POCSO aggravated penetrative sexual assault life imprisonment

Bharat Mittal v. State of Rajasthan

27 May 2025 · Aravind Kumar; N. V. Anjaria · 2025 INSC 1459
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that directors convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act after company liquidation can be directed to deposit 20% compensation under Section 148, with limited appellate discretion to exempt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 141 Section 148