ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
     Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator [on behalf of Appellant/Respondent]  

Latest Cases

(1) MS. XXXX Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 15-09-2025
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Section 3 and 5 and Rule 3A(a)(i) of MTP Rules, 2003 — Termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks — Allowed only if Medical Board diagnoses substantial foetal abnormalities or termination is necessary to save life of pregnant woman or her grave mental/physical health injury — Medical Board opined that termination of 30-week pregnancy would adversely affect mother and fetus,
India Law Library Docid # 2432692

(2) DAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 15-09-2025
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 430(2) — Suspension of Sentence — Bail pending appeal — Applicant convicted for life imprisonment — Submitted that approximately 10 years of sentence has been undergone and no likelihood of early hearing of appeal — Relied on Supreme Court directions in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh — Held that High Courts should
India Law Library Docid # 2432693

(3) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HARI SARAN[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2] — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Proof of demand is crucial — Mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient without proof of demand — Prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
India Law Library Docid # 2432658

(4) NAGINDER PAL Vs. MOHINDER SINGH VERMA AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Cheque issued for purchase of steel shuttering — Accused admitted issuance of cheques and signatures — Presumption under Section 139 arises that cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability — Accused failed to rebut presumption by adducing evidence of return of goods or payment — Denial of liability not sufficient to rebut presumption without
India Law Library Docid # 2432659

(5) GURSEV SINGH Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Complaint against authorized signatory of a company — Essential ingredients of Section 138 require the complaint to be against the drawer of the cheque — Company, being a legal entity, is the drawer when a cheque is issued from its account — Authorized signatory merely signs on behalf of the company and does not become the drawer —
India Law Library Docid # 2432660

(6) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJESH KUMAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — High Court interference — Interference with acquittal judgment warranted only if it suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or if only one reasonable conclusion (guilt) is possible from evidence.
India Law Library Docid # 2432661

(7) SACHIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Information Technology Act, 2000 — Petitioner convicted under Sections 354-B IPC, Sections 6 & 14(3) POCSO Act, and Sections 66-E & 67-B IT Act — Applied for parole for agricultural purposes — Application rejected based on victim's mother's objection and a new FIR registered during previous parole — Court quashed rejection order, allowing
India Law Library Docid # 2432662

(8) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUNIL KHAN[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Appellate court powers — Appellate court can review, re-appreciate, and reconsider evidence but must remember presumption of innocence is doubled for accused after acquittal — If two reasonable views are possible, appellate court should not disturb acquittal.
India Law Library Docid # 2432663

(9) RISHITA KAPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. VIJAY KAPUR AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Maintenance — Children — Entitlement for maintenance extends only until the age of majority, unless the child suffers from a physical or mental abnormality or injury rendering them unable to maintain themselves.
India Law Library Docid # 2432664

(10) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A — Rash and Negligent Driving — Appeal against Acquittal — Scope of Interference by High Court — High Court can interfere only if acquittal judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no two reasonable views are possible, with only view consistent with guilt being plausible.
India Law Library Docid # 2432665

(11) RAHISUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Habeas Corpus Petition — Maintainability — Child Custody Matters — Writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for securing the liberty of a minor and restoring custody when wrongfully deprived, even if a remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act exists. The writ court can grant custody of a minor to a guardian when wrongfully deprived, especially when another person is not
India Law Library Docid # 2432694

(12) MOHAMMAD SALIM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Administration of Justice — Abuse of Process — While prior judgments favoured adherence to guidelines and the Justice Wadhwa Committee Report, subsequent Division Bench rulings and High Court decisions have established that existing fair price shop licensees do not have a vested right to prevent the state from opening new shops, overriding earlier interpretations
India Law Library Docid # 2432695

(13) MITHA LAL Vs. GOPILAL[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-09-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 102 — Second Appeal — Maintainability — Prohibition on second appeal in suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts when the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 3,000/— The nature of the suit is decisive, not the procedure employed — Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,850/— is cognizable
India Law Library Docid # 2432696

(14) BALKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 15/61/85 — Possession of poppy husk — Appeal against conviction — Appellant not challenging conviction on merits — Prayer for modification of sentence on quantum — Appellant had undergone 04 months and 02 days of imprisonment — FIR pertains to 2011 — Case involves protracted trial of over 14 years — Appellant living peacefully since then —
India Law Library Docid # 2432560

(15) SARDAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR SURESH AND OTHERS Vs. PIARE LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR JAL SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope — In Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are treated under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 CPC. No question of law needs to be framed in such appeals.
India Law Library Docid # 2432558

(16) SHYAM SUNDER YADAV Vs. RIMPLE AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Conviction and sentence upheld by Appellate Court found to be appealable by way of revision. Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compoundable despite consequences and provisions of CrPC, 1973, as per Section 147 of the NI Act. Parties arrived at a voluntary compromise.
India Law Library Docid # 2432559

(17) STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAM PAL[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 279 — Rash Driving or Riding on a Public Way — Appeal against acquittal — High Court interference standard — High Court can interfere with an acquittal if it is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or leads to a conclusion no reasonable person could reach. If two reasonable interpretations of evidence are possible, acquittal should not be disturbed.
India Law Library Docid # 2432667

(18) MOHAMMED IRFAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 300 and 304 Part II — Murder vs. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Distinction lies in intention and knowledge — Murder requires intent to cause death or injury likely to cause death, or knowledge of inherent danger — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II requires knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but without intent to cause death
India Law Library Docid # 2432699

(19) DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 304 Part II, 109, 120-B — Appeal against conviction for murder — Alteration of conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Absence of premeditation, motive, and undue advantage — Assault occurring on spur of the moment — Factors considered: nature of weapon, vital part of body, force employed, sudden quarrel, pre-meditation, prior enmity, provocation, heat of passion,
India Law Library Docid # 2432697

(20) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUGAN KHAN @ SHOKAT KHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 11-09-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302/34 — Murder — Acquittal — Criminal Appeals — State's appeal against acquittal from murder charge — Accused convicted for lesser offences — Accused not liable for murder if death is due to intervening causes like septicemia, toxemia, delayed treatment, or medical complications, rather than direct act of accused — Prosecution must prove accused's act as direct and proximate cause of
India Law Library Docid # 2432698