Real judgements, distilled
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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
10422 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Members of a family alleged that the appellant and others had, through a conspiracy, fraudulently obtained bogus powers of attorney from them (exploiting their illiteracy and poverty) to grab a valuable plot of land in Surat and had it transferred and developed. An FIR was eventually registered in 2016 covering offences including cheating, breach of trust, forgery and atrocities against Scheduled Castes. The accused sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC; the Gujarat High Court, after a lengthy 89-page analysis, quashed the FIR only in part (for some offences) while allowing investigation to continue on the rest, prompting cross-appeals from both the complainants and the accused.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limits of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by effectively acting like an investigating or appellate authority, weighing disputed evidence and drawing its own factual conclusions on parts of the FIR, rather than simply asking whether the FIR, on its face, disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. Relying on its earlier ruling in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, the Court held that once an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, courts must let the investigation proceed rather than dissecting it piecemeal. Finding that the complaints and FIR here did disclose prima facie offences, it allowed the complainants' appeals, set aside the High Court's partial quashing, dismissed the accused persons' appeals, and directed the police to complete the investigation without being influenced by any of the lower courts' observations.
When deciding whether to quash an FIR, courts should examine only whether the FIR, on its face, discloses a prima facie cognizable offence: they should not conduct a mini-trial weighing disputed evidence or pick apart which parts of an FIR to keep and which to quash, as that oversteps the limited inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
