Indian Penal Code (IPC) important Supreme Court and High Court Judgments with subject of case, case decisions, case laws and citations
Case Title | Name of Court | Act | Date and Citation | Gist |
Amarawati And Anr. vs State Of U.P | Allahabad High Court | IPC | 15 October 2004 2005 (1) AWC 416, 2005 CriLJ 755, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 155 |
1.Hierarchy of laws 2. Arrest is not a must whenever an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is lodged. 3. any application for bail under Section 437, CrPC should ordinarily be decided by the Magistrate the same day, except in rare cases where reasons shall be recorded in writing for adjourning the hearing of the bail application |
Arun Atmaram Patil & Ors vs Sandhya Arun Patil & Anr | Bombay High Court | IPC | 24 February 2016 |
When one party has acted on the consent terms to it's disadvantage, the other party having received the benefits cannot be allowed to backtrack |
Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P | Supreme Court | IPC | 25 April 1994 1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260 |
No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person |
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P | Supreme Court | IPC | 23 March 2009 (2009) 4 SCC 437 |
1. the Court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. 2. arrest is not a must whenever an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is lodged. |
Monica Bedi vs State Of A.P | Supreme Court | IPC | 09 November 2010 (2011) 1 SCC 284 |
Double jeopardy applies to punishment for same offence, not same facts |
Nachhattar Singh Alias Khanda vs State Of Punjab | Punjab and Haryana High Court | IPC | 23 September 2009 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 409 |
False case was filed and Men Prosecuted. Later on found innocent so compensated by State for Damages. |
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs State Of Rajasthan | Supreme Court | IPC | 06 May 2013 (2013) 5 SCC 722 |
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted |
Shamsher Singh Verma vs State Of Haryana | Supreme Court | IPC | 24 November 2015 2015 (12) Scale 597 |
1. CD is a 'document' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 2. Accused can play the CD in court in his defense. |
Sunny Paul & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors |
Delhi High Court | Sr. Citizens Act | 15 March 2017 | Abusive son to be evicted from parents' home |
Domestic Violence Act Citations |
CRPC - Code of Criminal Procedure CPC Important citations, case laws |