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.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Digambar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 1019Decided 20 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

A woman married her husband in 2006, and after she gave birth to two daughters, her husband and in-laws (the appellants, her husband's parents) allegedly pressured her for a son, subjecting her to cruelty. She filed an FIR against her husband and his parents under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 312, 313 (causing miscarriage) and 34 of the IPC. The husband's parents sought to have the FIR quashed by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court refused, saying the truth of the allegations should be tested at trial. They appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had taken an erroneous approach, while the truthfulness of a complaint is indeed a trial matter, a court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC must still apply a prima facie test to see whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclose an offence against the specific accused. Examining the FIR, the Court found the allegations against the in-laws to be vague, general, and lacking any specific instance of act or date tying them to the alleged cruelty or the miscarriage-related offences: a pattern of "omnibus" implication of the husband's family common in matrimonial FIRs. Applying the guidelines from the landmark Bhajanlal case, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it as against the appellants.

Lesson Learnt

Courts must scrutinize FIRs in matrimonial cruelty cases carefully before allowing prosecution to proceed: vague and generalized accusations against extended family members, without specific dates or acts, can be quashed at the threshold rather than forcing years of trial on family members who may have been named merely by association.

Digambar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware