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

Hari Nandan Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 305Decided 11 Feb 2025
Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 452 of 2024)
Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

An RTI applicant (the appellant) allegedly refused to accept RTI documents personally delivered to his home by a government clerk, then used insulting religious remarks and abusive language against the clerk before eventually accepting the papers. A criminal case followed under Sections 353 (assault/force on a public servant), 298 (wounding religious feelings), and 504 (intentional insult) IPC, and the appellant's applications to be discharged were rejected by the Magistrate, the Sessions Court, and the Jharkhand High Court in succession.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court re-examined the actual text of the FIR and complaint and found that none of the three offences were made out even on the complainant's own version: there was no assault or use of force (ruling out Section 353), the remarks, though in poor taste, did not amount to wounding religious sentiments (ruling out Section 298), and there was no act capable of provoking a breach of the peace (ruling out Section 504). Applying the settled principles on discharge from Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Court held that continuing the prosecution against an 80-year-old appellant on these facts was unwarranted, set aside the High Court's order, and discharged him of all three charges.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal case cannot proceed to trial merely because an FIR uses the language of an offence. Courts must check whether the facts alleged, even if fully believed, actually satisfy every legal ingredient of the charged offence before forcing someone to stand trial.

Hari Nandan Singh v. The State of Jharkhand – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware