243 : 2025 INSC 861 Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No(s). 331-332 of 2022) 16 July 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta JJ.] Issue for Consideration Allegation against the appellant herein that he committed a forceful rape and strangulated a 10 year old girl are sustainable in law or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 377, 302 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Allegation against the appellant that he lured innocent children to his dwelling, took his pick from them and let
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the matrimonial appeal filed by the appellant-husband refusing to grant divorce to the parties. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(a) – Divorce – on the ground of cruelty by the appellant-husband – Dismissed by the family court – Thereagainst, an appeal by the appellant on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and animosity between the parties – Dismissed by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: Fit
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to hand back the possession of the secured asset to the 1st respondent; whether the 1st Respondent failed to establish pre-existing tenancy in his favour. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.13(2), (4) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the secured asset since 1987, through an unregistered tenancy agreement – Tenancy expired in 1992, however, 1st Respondent
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash FIR against the appellants-officials of the Municipal Corporation and the builder u/s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.120-B IPC, wherein the a commercial structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation permission. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Criminal misconduct – Criminal conspiracy –
Issue for Consideration The High Court upheld reduction of one-third of the pension payable to the appellant under the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. Headnotes† Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Central Bank of 1979 – Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Allegation against the appellant that he sanctioned loans without proper appraisal – Inquiry was initiated – Inquiry report held the appellant guilty – Consequent
Issue for Consideration Whether the EPF Authorities were justified in treating the appellant and the Respondent No.3 as one unit for the purpose of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Headnotes† Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous s.2A – Establishment to include all departments and branches – Appellant’s unit manufactured tablets and syrups, while the Respondent No.3 manufactured injections and capsules – Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) held that the appellant was part and parcel of the
Issue for Consideration Whether interest on penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer is payable by the appellants, and if so, from which date- whether from the date of the adjudication orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer or the demand notices issued by Board of India Act, 1992 – s.28A – Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.220(1), (2), (4) – Recovery of amounts – When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default – Interest on unpaid penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, if payable by the appellants
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 376, 397 – Evidence Rape and Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – DNA evidence – Reliability – Prosecution case that victims- young man and girl went to a tourist place, where allegedly, the appellant first came to the prosecution witness and his partner asking to part with her jewellery and
Issue for Consideration The petitioner-mother has preferred the instant review petitions primarily on the ground that the news of the imminent separation of the minor child (aged 11 years old at that time) from his mother, who has been his primary guardian since has caused an immense negative impact on the mental health of the child. Headnotes† Child and Family Welfare – Custody of Child – The High Court granted permanent custody of the child to the respondent- father while granting virtual visitation rights to the mother on every
Issue for Consideration (A) Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- for the alleged violations committed against the appellant, while dismissing the complaint against respondent no.3, and partly allowing the complaint against respondent no.2, calls for adequate and appropriate facilities are being made available to prisoners with disabilities during incarceration in the prisons of Tamil Nadu, in compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCPRD. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 21 – Rights of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the objections raised by the respondents about the bonafides of the appellants as also the allegations that the appellants suppressed the initiation of parallel proceedings before the High Court. Headnotes† Practice and proceedings – Non- disclosure – Application by the appellant for restraining respondents from setting up a petrol pump, as also challenged the NOC issued by the Collector – Application as also review petition dismissed by the tribunal – Appeal before this Court –
Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to legality of recruitment/selection of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the findings of the Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections made by the illegality in the recruitment process. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.320 – Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 – UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and
Issue for Consideration The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against respondent nos.1 and 2 in two complaint cases whereby they were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of Penal Code, 1860. Whether a prima facie case exists against the respondents. 415, 420 r/w. s.34 – Allegation that respondent nos.1 and 2, along with their uncles, have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to gain all the monetary award for a land bypassing the appellant and her sisters – Two
Issue for Consideration Whether the Administrative Tribunal was correct in its refusal to grant the appellant, permission to compromise proceedings with the private respondents in terms of Article 154 (3) of the Code of Comunidades. Headnotes† Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, Comunidades – Art.154(3) – Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 – By the order dated 13.04.2023, the Administrative Tribunal, Goa refused to grant permission to the appellant to compromise proceedings instituted by the private respondents herein (respondent nos. 3 to 11) –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, in the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.4-complainant for offences punishable u/ss.60(b), 316(2) and 318 (2), BNS, 2023, and directing mediation and also directing the appellant to hand-over a demand draft of Rs.25 Lakh to the Respondent No.4 for the mediation; whether the impugned FIR against the appellant ought to be quashed as the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. Headnotes† Quashing – Of FIR
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of sanction; and whether r.214 of the Karnataka Civil any application to stifle criminal proceedings for offences punishable under the IPC or the PC Act or any analogous law. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.197, 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 – r.214
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, is justified. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 deceased were engaged – Though A-4 was engaged to the deceased however, she was not willing to get married to him and expressed her grievance to A-1, her close friend – A-1 sought help from his cousin, A-3, who roped in his friend, A-2 and the accused persons murdered the deceased
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly upheld the mandamus issued by the Single Judge directing the IOCL to maintain the supply of kerosene to the respondent No.1-partnership firm till it is reconstituted or its dealership Headnotes† Partnership Act, 1932 – s.42 – Kerosene dealership agreement entered into between IOCL and respondent No.1-partnership firm having three partners – However, on the death of one of the partners of the partnership firm, IOCL discontinued the supply of
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants u/s.482, CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them, and holding that the proceedings involving serious offence u/s.376, basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of proceedings involving serious offences including s.376, IPC on the ground of settlement between the parties – Permissibility: Held: Ordinarily, quashing of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16(2), 34(1) – High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 – r.6(9) Advocates – Suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court – High Court quashed r.6(9) of the Rules whereby notwithstanding the procedure, Full Court on its own can designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate even without any proposal from Hon’ble Judges or