SOME LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
_1. *Lalita Kumari v. State of UP*_
👉 FIR mandatory in cognizable cases_
_2. *Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum*_
👉 Section 125 of CrPC is Secular_
_3. *D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal*_
👉 SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person_
_4. *Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa*_
👉 Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention_
_5. *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra*_
👉 Rights of women relating to arrest_
_6. *Joginder Kumar v. State of UP*_
👉 SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person_
_7. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha*_
👉 Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships_
_8. *Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar*_
👉 Filing of Multiple FIR_
_9. *Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP*_
👉 Father of deceased victim has right to appeal_
_10. *State of UP v. Singhara Singh*_
👉 Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him_
_11. *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum*_
👉 Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC.
_12. *CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni*_
👉 Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days.
_13. *Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay*_
👉 Offence triable where the act is done.
_14. *Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.*_
👉 Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC.
_15. *Dina Nath v. Emperor*_
👉 No summary trial in serious or complicated cases.
_16. *Surendra Singh v. State of UP*_
👉 Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it.
_17. *Naresh v. State of UP*_
👉 Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC.
_18. *Ashok Kumar v. UOI*_
👉 Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC.
_19. *Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani*_
👉 Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and indefeasible right.
_20. *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab*_
👉 SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail.
_21. *Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan*_
👉 Quashing of FIR on account of delay.
_22. *State of MP v. Madan Lal*_
👉 No compromise in Rape cases.
_23. *Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan*_
👉 Compensation to victim of Crime.
_24. *S.R. Sukumar v. Sunnad Raghuram*_
👉 Amendment in complaint can be done.
_25. *Siddaharth Vashisht v. State(NCT of Delhi)*_
👉 Cryptic Telephonic Message of a cognizable offence not to be treated as FIR.
Facebook-
No comments:
Post a Comment