LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nadeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 659Decided 7 May 2025
Criminal Appeal (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12088 of 2022)
Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

A landlord-tenant dispute in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, had spiralled into multiple criminal cases and civil suits between the appellant and the second respondent, including an FIR against the appellant alleging assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, and trespass (Sections 323, 504, 324, 427, 447, and 506 IPC, with the chargesheet also touching non-compoundable offences). The Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the chargesheet and summoning order. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement: the tenant would continue paying rent and remain in occupation, and all related litigation between the families (including a separate suit and a related criminal case that had already been compounded) would be dropped.

Decision Breakdown

The Court accepted the parties' joint application under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking to end all the litigation. It noted that most of the alleged offences (Sections 323, 504, 427, 447, 506 IPC) were already legally "compoundable" under Section 320 CrPC, meaning the parties could ordinarily settle them directly. Although the chargesheet also potentially touched non-compoundable offences (Sections 307 and 324 IPC), the Court held that since all the allegations arose from the same single incident and the parties had genuinely and voluntarily resolved their dispute, restoring a peaceful landlord-tenant relationship, it was appropriate to use its special constitutional power under Article 142 to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the non-compoundable parts, in the interest of complete justice.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a criminal case includes offences that are not normally settleable ("non-compoundable") under ordinary law, the Supreme Court can use its special Article 142 power to quash the entire proceeding where the dispute is fundamentally personal/civil in nature (such as a landlord-tenant relationship), the parties have genuinely settled all related litigation, and continuing the prosecution would serve no real public purpose.

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

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case