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

Kishore Balkrishna Nand vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 675Decided 2 Aug 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2011
J.B. Pardiwala · Manoj Misra

Background

The appellant had written a formal complaint to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondent had encroached on land to build a shop that was attracting anti-social elements and causing nuisance. The respondent then filed a private criminal complaint for defamation against the appellant, and a Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. After years of litigation, including the Magistrate initially recalling the process, a Sessions Court reversing that recall, and the appellant unsuccessfully challenging the original summons in the High Court eight years later on grounds of delay: the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that no offence of defamation was made out at all. It relied on the Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC, which protects an accusation made in good faith to a person who has lawful authority over the person accused: here, a complaint to the SDM about an encroachment and nuisance. Since the complaint was addressed to a public authority in that capacity and not published to the world at large, and the allegations themselves did not disclose the ingredients of defamation, the Court found the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the underlying criminal case was quashed.

Lesson Learnt

A citizen who reports a genuine grievance (such as land encroachment or public nuisance) to a competent authority like an SDM, in good faith and without wider publication, is legally protected from a defamation complaint by the person accused in that report: this is what the "good faith complaint to authorised person" exception exists for.

Kishore Balkrishna Nand vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware