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

Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 886Decided 23 Jul 2025
Crl.A. No.-000555-000555 - 2018
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant, a government employee belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that a Mandal Revenue Officer (Respondent No. 2) and a police Sub-Inspector (Respondent No. 1), acting at the behest of a local businessman, falsely implicated him in an unrelated criminal case in retaliation for his complaint about wrongful allotment of land meant for SC/ST beneficiaries. After he was cleared and the case against him dropped, he filed a complaint against the two respondents under the SC/ST Act alleging harassment and humiliation motivated by his caste. The Telangana High Court quashed this complaint against the respondents under Section 482 CrPC, and the appellant challenged that quashing before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a prosecution under the SC/ST Act requires specific evidence that the accused's actions were driven by the victim's caste status, not merely that the complainant happens to belong to a Scheduled Caste and has other ongoing disputes with the accused. Reviewing the complaint, the Court found only bald, unsubstantiated allegations without concrete instances showing caste-based intent behind the appellant's earlier false implication, and held that pending litigation between the parties alone cannot support a presumption of malicious, caste-motivated prosecution. Relying on precedent warning against misuse of the SC/ST Act to settle personal scores or harass public servants, the Court upheld the High Court's quashing order and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

A complaint under the SC/ST Act must show specific facts establishing that the accused acted because of the complainant's caste: general grievances, personal disputes, or the complainant's caste status alone are not enough, and courts will step in early to quash prosecutions that lack this essential element.

Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware