Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNUversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960/2021
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC740

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case of 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNUversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9292024 INSC 740Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case of
XYZversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4463/2024
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC869

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of settlement. Headnotes† Criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the – Advisable to procure presence of victim either personally or through video conferencing: Held: When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal 

Summary: XYZversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7922024 INSC 869Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of settlement. Headnotes† Criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the – Advisable to procure presence of victim either personally or through video conferencing: Held: When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal
SUDEEP CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3210/2024
Decision Date: 02-08-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC567

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused- bail: Held: Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Conditions should be put warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SUDEEP CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6622024 INSC 567Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused- bail: Held: Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Conditions should be put warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to
SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2790/2024
Decision Date: 18-07-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC534

J.B. PARDIWALA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Serious charges no ground to deny bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – SS.16, 43D – Penal Code, 1860 – SS. 489B, 489C – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10542024 INSC 534Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Serious charges no ground to deny bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – SS.16, 43D – Penal Code, 1860 – SS. 489B, 489C – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from
IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case No.: SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4/2024
Decision Date: 13-08-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC605

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court, the press conference on 22.11.2023 making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the proposed contemnors, 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4012024 INSC 605Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court, the press conference on 22.11.2023 making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the proposed contemnors,
VIKAS KANAUJIAversusSARITA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7380/2024
Decision Date: 10-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC517

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Headnotes† Marriage – Divorce – and setting aside the decree of divorce granted by Family Court – Constitution of India – Article 142: Held: i)The Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife have lived together on their own will for hardly 43 days since marriage – The period of separation has been more than 22 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.VIKAS KANAUJIAversusSARITA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9332024 INSC 517Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Headnotes† Marriage – Divorce – and setting aside the decree of divorce granted by Family Court – Constitution of India – Article 142: Held: i)The Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife have lived together on their own will for hardly 43 days since marriage – The period of separation has been more than 22
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS.versusVIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7414/2024
Decision Date: 10-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC514

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered. Headnotes† Auction – Conditions of sale – Forfeiture of security deposit – Respondent in auction conducted by forest department, Gorakhpur (U.P.) in 1998 for certain forest produce – Parties executed an Agreement in terms of relevant Conditions of Sale – However despite being informed about last date to deposit the bid amount and complete the work, followed by two 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS.versusVIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 24272024 INSC 514Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered. Headnotes† Auction – Conditions of sale – Forfeiture of security deposit – Respondent in auction conducted by forest department, Gorakhpur (U.P.) in 1998 for certain forest produce – Parties executed an Agreement in terms of relevant Conditions of Sale – However despite being informed about last date to deposit the bid amount and complete the work, followed by two
BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1842/2024
Decision Date: 08-02-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC361

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the claim petition after about 6 years. Headnotes Motor Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – Tribunal held that the mere fact that the 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 12042024 INSC 361Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the claim petition after about 6 years. Headnotes Motor Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – Tribunal held that the mere fact that the