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 LawDelhi High Court

Mohd Kalam vs. The State and Anr.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · CNR No. DLHC010439412026Decided 16 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.M.C. 6862/2026CNR: DLHC010439412026
Justice Manoj Jain

Background

A labourer, Ramkalit Yadav, employed by the petitioner's power company, was injured after coming into contact with a live electric wire while digging, and was rushed to AIIMS Trauma Centre. An FIR was registered against the employer under provisions corresponding to causing hurt through a negligent act (BNS Sections 287/125(a), corresponding to IPC Sections 285/337), on the allegation that safety measures had not been taken.

Decision Breakdown

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding: the injured worker continued working for the same employer at nearly double his earlier salary, and received Rs 1,00,000 as compensation by demand draft in court. He confirmed the settlement was voluntary and that he had no objection to quashing. The Court held continuing the case would serve no useful purpose once genuinely settled and quashed the FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

Lesson Learnt

Workplace-injury criminal cases involving relatively minor hurt offences can be resolved and quashed once the employer compensates the injured worker and the worker confirms a voluntary, adequate settlement.

Mohd Kalam vs. The State and Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware