Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1088Decided 28 Nov 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023
C.T. Ravikumar · Sanjay Kumar

Background

After a matrimonial dispute, the appellant's wife lodged an FIR against him, his parents, and relatives alleging hurt, extortion (demand of Rs. 20 lakh), and criminal breach of trust (snatching cash and jewellery), months after the appellant had already filed for divorce and for guardianship of their minor daughter. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC, and the appellant challenged that refusal before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the chargesheet and record in detail and found that none of the three offences charged (voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 IPC), extortion (Section 384 IPC), and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC)) had their essential ingredients made out even prima facie. There was no medical evidence of injury, no material showing the twin requirements of extortion (inducement through fear to part with property), and no proof of entrustment of property necessary for breach of trust. The Court held the High Court had failed in its duty under Section 482 CrPC to examine whether the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie offence, and accordingly quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and the summoning order against the appellant.

Lesson Learnt

When exercising its power to quash criminal proceedings, a High Court must actually examine whether the chargesheet's allegations meet the legal ingredients of the charged offences: vague, unsupported allegations, especially ones that surface strategically during a matrimonial dispute, cannot sustain a prosecution.

Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware