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

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Not available · 2024 INSC 529Decided 15 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

In 1994, ten people were charge-sheeted for a double murder committed by an armed group over an alleged police complaint about kidnapping and opium sale. One accused, Chhote Singh, later became a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, and in 2008 the State Government permitted withdrawal of his prosecution on the stated ground that he enjoyed a "good public image." The trial court allowed withdrawal for Chhote Singh but rejected it for the other nine accused without giving reasons. Both the accused persons and the murder victim's family filed revision petitions before the Allahabad High Court, which then sat pending for twelve years and was repeatedly adjourned, six times, at the request of the accused's counsel, prompting the victim's son to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that an accused's electoral popularity or "good public image" cannot justify withdrawing prosecution in a case of a gruesome double murder, and that the trial court's reliance on such a ground while allowing withdrawal for Chhote Singh was legally unsustainable. It found that repeated adjournments granted by the High Court over twelve years had effectively let politically influential accused persons use dilatory tactics to stall justice. The Court set aside the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh, restored the case against him, and directed the Allahabad High Court to decide the remaining pending revision petitions of the other accused without further delay, also directing that trial court records be returned so the nearly three-decade-old trial could finally proceed.

Lesson Learnt

Public office or popularity is not a valid legal ground for the State to withdraw a serious criminal prosecution, and courts have a duty to prevent political influence and repeated adjournments from indefinitely stalling justice for victims' families.

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware