Explained| Is Preliminary Enquiry mandatory in all corruption cases?
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a Preliminary Enquiry is
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a Preliminary Enquiry is
Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas J. allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah, JJ., while addressing a matter expressed that, The administration
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., held that FIR under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be quashed
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The factual matrix of the case is such
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. upheld Rajasthan High Court’s order whereby it had directed
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: Ankur Jain, ASJ (SFTC-01), addressed a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Anjani Kumar Mishra and Shekhar Kumar Yadav, JJ., expressed on what constitutes as ‘Gang’ under
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arvind Singh Sangwan, J., stayed the proceedings against former Chief Minister of Haryana–Bhupinder Singh Hooda with regard
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of
Kerala High Court: V.G. Arun, J., held that a complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases when the FIR based on the
Karnataka High Court: K. Natarajan, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. The facts of the case are such that
Telangana High Court: K. Lakshman, J., allowed a criminal petition and quashed a criminal case filed against the petitioner-accused as the ingredients
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Abhay Ahuja, JJ., reiterated the observation of Supreme Court in Gian Singh
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., addresses a matter revolving around the possession of ammunition by a person which he/she is
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud* and M. R. Shah, JJ., pronounced an important judgment which came out
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Z.A. Haq and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., while addressing the matter, observed that: In the
Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., rejected a bail application wherein the Petitioner, Principal of a School, aged about 58 years,
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that: “Courts must not close its eyes to the fact that it is the victim
Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench comprising of Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah*, JJ., addressed the instant appeal challenging the