LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Massimilano Latorre & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (The "Italian Marines"/Enrica Lexie case)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 306Decided 15 Jun 2021
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20370 of 2012
Justice Indira Banerjee · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

In February 2012, two Italian marines aboard the Italian vessel "Enrica Lexie" allegedly fired at an Indian fishing boat off the Kerala coast, killing two fishermen. An FIR for murder and other offences was registered against them in Kerala, and their challenge to India's jurisdiction was dismissed by the Kerala High Court. The dispute eventually went to international arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which in 2020 delivered an award directing Italy to pay compensation and resume its own criminal investigation.

Decision Breakdown

With Italy having deposited Rs. 10 crore in compensation (on top of amounts already paid) and all parties, the Union of India, the State of Kerala, the victims' heirs and the boat owner, agreeing to accept the arbitral award and close the Indian proceedings, the Supreme Court used its special "complete justice" power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIR and all related criminal proceedings in India, discharge the marines' bail bonds and release the bank guarantees furnished as sureties. It also directed how the compensation would be safely invested and disbursed to the deceased fishermen's families and the boat owner, with a Kerala High Court judge supervising disbursement.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court can invoke its Article 142 powers to bring a long-running, diplomatically sensitive criminal case to a close once an international dispute-resolution mechanism has resolved the underlying issue and all affected parties, including victims, have consented to the settlement.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case