Indian Constitution

2023INSC890 SLP (Crl.) 12 of 2020 Page 1 of 21 Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12 of 2020) Siby Thomas …Appellant Versus M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd.  …Respondent J U D G M E N T C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal by accused No.4 in the complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) is directed against the order dated 06.12.2019 in CRM-M No.52299 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. As per SLP (Crl.) 12 of 2020 Page 2 of 21 the impugned order the High Court declined to quash the complaint qua the appellant in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC’). 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned cou

2023INSC896 1 Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2045 OF 2011 Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. “Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?” - is the question posed before us. 2 2. The appellant is a qualified doctor, and was Commissioned Air Force Officer. He retired on 30.04.1990 as Wing Commander. The respondent is also a qualified teacher, who was working in a Central School, and has retired now. The appellant had filed the Divorce proceedings on 12.03.1996 before the District Court

Davinder Singh Versus State of Punjab  Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 of 2015 Davinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent JUDGEMENT M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed. BRIEF FACTS: 2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely Pargat Singh came home and 1 upon seeing him, the appellant took

STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS KEWAL KRISHAN CASE 1 Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2128/2014 STATE OF PUNJAB ..APPELLANT(S)  VERSUS KEWAL KRISHAN ..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T 1. Counsel for the appellant is present. None has appeared for the respondent. The office has submitted a report that notice has been served on the sole respondent, yet no one has entered appearance on his behalf. 2. We have heard Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This appeal assails the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (for short the High Court) dated 01.05.2012 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2002, whereby the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the respondent (Kewal Krishan) under Section 302, IPC has been set aside and the 2 appellant (respondent herein) has been acquitted of the charges for which he w