Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 66 & 90 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that invalidated an auction sale. The original suit was filed for recovery of money, and an ex parte decree was passed in favor of the decree holder. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed to recover the decretal amount by attaching and selling the judgment debtor’s property.

The property was brought to auction multiple times, with the upset price being reduced each time due to a lack of bidders.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 302, 364, 384, 355, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 34; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 439 – This case involves an appeal by the State of Karnataka challenging a High Court order that granted bail to several accused individuals in connection with Crime No. 250 of 2024. The crime, registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru, pertains to the alleged abduction and murder of one Renukaswamy, who was purportedly killed for sending obscene messages to one of the accused.

The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, forensic reports indicating the presence of the deceased’s blood on items recovered from the accused, and digital evidence suggesting a conspiracy.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1), 60, 63; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Sections 451, 457; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS] – Sections 497, 503 – This case involves an appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision to reject the interim custody of the appellant’s lorry, seized after Ganja was found in it, leading to an FIR under the NDPS Act. The Special Court also dismissed the application, citing Section 63 of the NDPS Act regarding confiscation.

The High Court upheld the decision, stating that the Drug Disposal Committee, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, holds the authority over the disposal, including interim release, of seized conveyances.

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Rules of 2022 supersede the Special Court’s jurisdiction under the CrPC/BNSS to grant interim custody.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7-A – The petitioner, convicted of murder in 1984 under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sought immediate release via a writ of mandamus, arguing that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and had served more than the maximum permissible detention period under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2000.

The petitioner’s date of birth is 10th June, 1969. In 1981, he was accused of murder. The Sessions Court, in 1984, acknowledged his age as 16 and directed him to a children’s home under the Children’s Act, 1960.

The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act Section 4; Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 294(b), 506(i) – This case originates from a petition filed by a senior citizen to quash proceedings in CC.No.128 of 2013, pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. The case stems from a complaint by the petitioner’s daughter-in-law, leading to charges under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings until recently, despite the case being filed in 2013. The court expressed concern over the delay in serving summons, spanning nearly 12 years.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 396 r/w 34, Section 201 r/w 396 r/w 36; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27; Criminal Procedure Code – Section 207 – This case involves two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.93 of 2016, dated 20.11.2018. The State filed Crl.A.No.872 of 2018, and the complainant (P.W.1) filed Crl.A.No.583 of 2019. The accused (A1 to A3) were acquitted of offences under Section 396 r/w. 34 IPC (dacoity with murder) and Section 201 r/w.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302, Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a), and 29(b), Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 357A – The appellant, wife of the deceased, challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram, in S.C.No.125/2013, dated 03.11.2018. The case originated from a complaint filed by the appellant, alleging that the accused murdered her husband. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including motive (illicit relationship), last seen theory, recovery of a country gun (M.O.5), and medical evidence.

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69 and 351(2) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash proceedings in PRC.No.75 of 2025, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The complainant, an advocate, alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage and later threatened her.

 The Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 Rule 25(6) – This case originated from a Criminal Original Petition filed by an accused seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against him. The investigation was already completed, and a final report had been filed. The court initially declined to quash the FIR, advising the petitioner to challenge the final report. The court then noticed delays in taking the final report on file and requested a report from the Judicial Magistrate, revealing issues with e-filing procedures.

Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 – Section 3(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India – This Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of the detenu, Muthukumar, challenging his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, arguing that he was classified as a “Goonda”.

The petitioner contended that the detention order should be quashed because the detenu was provided with an illegible copy of the Remand Order, a document relied upon by the Detaining Authority. This illegibility, particularly on Page No. 261 of the provided booklet, hindered the detenu’s ability to make an effective representation against his detention.