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

Nahar Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal AppealDecided 16 Mar 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2022
Vineet Saran · Aniruddha Bose

Background

A young woman was allegedly abducted and raped; the initial FIR and her first police statement named only one accused, Yogesh, with a second person, Rupa, added later in the chargesheet. However, in her statement recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, the victim also named a third person, Nahar Singh (the appellant), as one of the perpetrators, yet he was never included in the police chargesheet. After the victim's mother sought his summoning, the trial Magistrate initially declined, but on revision was directed to reconsider, and ultimately summoned Nahar Singh for trial even though he had not been named as an accused anywhere in the police report. Nahar Singh challenged this all the way to the High Court and then the Supreme Court, arguing a Magistrate cannot summon someone in this situation except through the separate procedure under Section 319 CrPC (which applies only once trial evidence is being recorded).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court traced the law through key precedents, including two Constitution Bench rulings, Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, and held that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC takes cognizance of the offence itself, not merely of the named offenders, and has a duty to proceed against anyone whose complicity is shown by material on record, even material outside the police report (such as a victim's Section 164 statement to a Magistrate). This power exists independently of, and is not limited to, the Section 319 CrPC route (which only comes into play once a trial or inquiry has actually begun). Since Nahar Singh's name surfaced through the victim's judicially recorded statement, the Magistrate was entitled to summon him even though the police had dropped him from the chargesheet. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Being left out of a police chargesheet is not a shield against prosecution. If credible evidence surfaces before a court showing a person's involvement in a crime (even material the police chose to ignore), a Magistrate has the power to summon that person for trial on the strength of that evidence alone.

Nahar Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware