{"id":349506,"date":"2025-06-03T15:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-06-03T09:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=349506"},"modified":"2025-06-25T15:09:52","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T09:39:52","slug":"latest-criminal-law-cases-may-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/03\/latest-criminal-law-cases-may-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"CRIMINAL LAW ROUNDUP: A quick recap of the Latest Criminal Law cases from May 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Covering all the important and latest criminal law cases from May 2025, this roundup provides a quick summary of key rulings from the Supreme Court and various High Courts such as bail of Former MP Harinarayan Rajbhar, release of 412 prisoners, illegality of unnatural sex with wife, Narayan Sai\u2019s furlough plea, medical negligence, Kota Students Suicide Case, and much more.<\/p>\n

ABETMENT TO SUICIDE<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018High Court misapplied S. 319<\/a> CrPC<\/a> by prioritising unproved defence documents over sworn testimony\u2019; Summoning order in abetment to suicide case, restored<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (\u2018Trial Court\u2019) summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), a Division Bench comprising of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. held that, in view of the purpose and scope of Section 319<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019), there was no infirmity in the Trial Court\u2019s decision to summon accused 2. The Court observed that not summoning him would have risked a truncated trial and a potential miscarriage of justice. It further held that the High Court, by placing unproven defence documents above sworn testimony, had adopted an approach, inconsistent with both the statutory mandate of Section 319<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and the broader context of a case involving a vulnerable victim. This intervention, the Court noted, effectively prevented the prosecution from testing the alibi and curtailed the Trial Court\u2019s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court\u2019s judgment was set aside. The Trial Court\u2019s order summoning accused 2 to stand trial under Section 306<\/a> IPC<\/a> was restored. The accused was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and comply with all further directions issued by the court. [Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029<\/a>] Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Allegations of past harassment insufficient without proximate mens rea for abetment of suicide; Case against Husband\u2019s in-laws, quashed<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In two appeals preferred against the judgment passed by Madras High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the petitions preferred by the accused persons under Section 482<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them under Section 306<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih*, JJ. highlighted that mere allegations of harassment, especially when made about an incident that occurred a month prior, followed by a complete lack of contact, could not suffice to conclude that the accused persons compelled the deceased to take his life. The Court held that since the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide had not been fulfilled, the continuation of the proceedings was not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13-04-2018 passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside, along with the proceedings pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram. [Shenbagavalli v. State<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 987<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Emotional\/mental vulnerability due to depression, & other psychiatric problems to be considered in abetment of suicide cases; Higher proof of instigation required<\/span><\/p>\n

In the applications filed by the petitioners (\u2018accused persons\u2019) under Section 438<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> for the grant of anticipatory bail for an offence registered under Sections 306<\/a> and 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), Ravinder Dudeja, J., stated that a person\u2019s emotional or mental vulnerability due to depression and other psychiatric problems is a big factor to be considered in a case of abetment of suicide. Therefore, in such cases, higher proof of instigation is required. Thus, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused persons, they should be released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer\/Investigating Officer. [X6 v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2800<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ACQUITTAL<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Accused acquitted in 14-year-old murder case whose acquittal was reversed by HC relying on testimony of the Investigating Officers<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal challenging reversal of acquittal in a murder case, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., noted that the Karnataka High Court in the instant matter, had reversed the accused\u2019s acquittal on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the Investigating Officers, who merely repeated the statements recorded under Section 161<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> and the voluntary statements of the accused. The Court said that it understood the consternation of the High Court Judges examining a cold-blooded murder where the elaborate investigation collapsed during the trial and majority of the witnesses turned hostile. However, that was no reason to rely on Section 161 statements, or the story scripted by the investigating agency based on the so-called voluntary statements and the recoveries made, which the prosecution failed to prove to have a nexus with the crime. The Court emphatically observed that, \u201cWe can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise. That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence\u201d. \u201cPrevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eyewitnesses turn blind\u201d. [Renuka Prasad v. State<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1074<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Husband in 498A IPC<\/a> case, acquitted; Concern expressed over misuse of dowry and cruelty provisions<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the convict against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the convict\u2019s conviction under Section 498-A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), and Section 4<\/a> of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a> (\u2018DP Act, 1961\u2019), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ. expressed concern over the misuse of Sections 498A<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Sections 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of the DP Act, 1961<\/a>. The Court highlighted a growing trend where complainant-wives indiscriminately array aged parents, distant relatives, and married sisters living separately as accused in matrimonial disputes. The Bench observed that such practices undermine the credibility of the allegations and vitiate the very core intent of these protective legal provisions. The Court further emphasised that the term \u201ccruelty\u201d under Section 498A<\/a> IPC<\/a> is often subject to misuse and cannot be established by general or vague allegations alone. It must be supported by specific instances detailing the time, date, and manner of the alleged cruelty. The Court remarked that invoking these penal provisions without providing clear, concrete instances significantly weakens the prosecution\u2019s case and raises serious doubts about the credibility of the complainant\u2019s version. Given these considerations, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court, and acquitted the convict of all charges under Section 498A<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961. [Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P<\/span>., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Anticipatory bail granted to former IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar for allegedly misrepresenting information in UPSC 2022 exam<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court\u2019s decision, whereby former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar\u2019s anticipatory bail plea was rejected, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. allowed the appeal, noting the submissions of the counsel and considering that she was cooperating with the investigation. The Court viewed that Puja was entitled to bail, hence set aside the impugned decision. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer shall release Puja on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs. 25,000\/- with two like sureties. The Court also directed that Puja shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation and shall not misuse her liberty, and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record. [Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1224<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | B<\/span>ail granted to accused person whose application was adjourned by Allahabad HC on 27 occasions<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering the instant matter, wherein the petitioner (accused) raised a grievance regarding the pendency of his bail application before the Allahabad High Court for a long time; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and A.G. Masih, J., noted that the High Court had adjourned the petitioner\u2019s matter on 27 occasions and opined that in the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time. [Lakshya Tawar v. CBI<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1233<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Bail granted to YouTuber Santhosh Varkey for objectionable Facebook post on female actors<\/span><\/p>\n

In a bail application filed by YouTuber Santhosh Varkey, popularly known as Arattannan, who was accused of offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3)<\/a>, and 79<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, Section 67<\/a> of the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>, and Section 120(o)<\/a> of the Kerala Police Act, 2011<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of M.B. Snehalatha*, J. said that a fair and thorough probe could still be ensured by granting bail to Santhosh. Hence, having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the progress made in the investigation, the Court viewed that the grant of bail would not impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions. [Santhosh Varkey v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 2955<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Anticipatory bail plea of Former MP Harinarayan Rajbhar for allegedly misusing Government\u2019s emblem to issue appointment letters, rejected<\/p>\n

In the present case, an application for anticipatory bail was filed under Section 4381 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> in a case registered with Mumbra Police Station against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 406<\/a>, 420<\/a>, 467<\/a>, 468<\/a>, 471<\/a>, and 500<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, for allegedly making appointment letters by using the letter head with the Central Government\u2019s emblem, and inserting his signature on the Id-card which bears the Central Government\u2019s emblem and name of Government of India. A Single Judge Bench of Rajesh S. Patil, J., took note of the allegations against the applicant that he with his team, by using the Central Government\u2019s emblem, using his letter head which had the emblem of the Central Government, issued id-cards and appointment letters on the letter head, had duped many persons including the complainant. The Court rejected the bail application and opined that to investigate the present matter; the applicant\u2019s interrogation would be necessary. [Harinarayan Bhagirathi Rajbhar v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1739<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Bribery strikes at root of public administration, erodes public faith in govt. institutions\u2019; Anticipatory bail plea of Junior Engineer, rejected<\/span><\/p>\n

In an anticipatory bail application filed by a Junior Engineer for an FIR under Section 7<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> (\u2018PC Act\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., dismissed the application, holding that grant of bail at this stage may not only hamper the ongoing investigation, but may also send an inappropriate signal in cases involving abuse of public office for pecuniary advantage. [Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2289<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks exploiting people\u2019s insecurities\u2019; Anticipatory bail refused to influencer whose hair oil allegedly injured 71 people<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an anticipatory bail application filed by an influencer named Amandeep Singh for an FIR registered under Section 124<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (\u2018BNS\u2019) and Section 7<\/a> of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954<\/a> for injuring 71 people with his herbal hair oil, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., rejected the plea, holding that the present matter was yet another unfortunate example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks taking advantage of common man\u2019s insecurities. The Court also stated that advertising a product that makes tall, misleading claims without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up must be strictly condemned. [Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2294<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Adopted similar modus operandi of habitually entering into dubious transactions\u2019; Anticipatory bail plea of real estate agent who allegedly conspired to cheat restaurant owner, rejected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (\u2018BNSS, 2023\u2019) was filed in a case, registered with Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai, wherein FIR dated 14-4-2025 was registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) of the BNSS based on the complaint of Respondent 2, Jayprakash Suru Shetty. A Single Judge Bench of Advait M. Sethna, J., noted that the applicant was a party to the MOU dated 22-1-2025 to be executed between Accused 3 and Respondent 2, whereby Respondent 2, who used to run a restaurant was induced to pay Rs 82 lakhs, in the nature of illegal gratification for giving it to BMC officials to transfer the restaurant\u2019s ownership, in the name of Respondent 2. The Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, stated that today Respondent 2 was a victim of such conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and tomorrow there might be someone else. Therefore, the Court held that it would be a travesty of justice if the applicant\u2019s custodial interrogation was stalled or prevented. [Pawan Amar Mutreja v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1879<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Granting relief will malign noble profession of advocacy\u2019: Anticipatory bail plea of an advocate in a road rage case, rejected<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed by the applicant (\u2018accused\u2019) seeking anticipatory bail in a road rage, case wherein the FIR was registered against him for the offence under Section 110<\/a>\/127(2)<\/a>\/351(3)<\/a>\/3(5)<\/a> of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, Girish Kathpalia, J. stated that granting anticipatory bail in the case of broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across the society that the aggressor took law in his own hands and walked free just because he happened to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of law, and none can be treated as more equal. The Court stated that if such relief was granted to the accused, it would also malign the noble profession of advocacy. The Court stated that the present case was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused and accordingly, dismissed the application. [Raj Kumar Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3242<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446<\/a> CrPC<\/a>\u2019; Appeal of a penalised surety, allowed and matter remanded<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against a composite order, whereby the Trial Court imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant and issued a recovery warrant against him under Section 421<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., allowed the appeal, holding that separate orders were required to be passed by the Trial Court as per Section 446<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, firstly, at the time of cancellation of bail bonds and secondly, at the time of imposing penalty. In this case, the composite order deprived the appellant-surety of the opportunity to put forward his plea regarding non-production of the accused. [Bihari Lal v. State of H.P<\/span>., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1666<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Disturbing trend of exploitation of NRIs by unscrupulous individuals\u2019; Anticipatory bail pleas of accused in illegal land sale case rejected<\/p>\n

In a set of two anticipatory bail applications filed by two accused who allegedly participated in the registration of an illegal sale deed, wherein the buyer was being impersonated, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., rejected the applications, holding that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy to usurp the properties of NRIs. [Bagel Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2504<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cThe incarcerated can\u2019t be expected to live at whims and fancies of State\u201d: Release of 412 prisoners on interim bail, directed<\/p>\n

In a criminal writ petition taken up by the Court regarding the pendency of 412 cases for premature release, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., while heavily condemning the apathy of the State, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrates (\u2018CJMs\u2019) concerned to release such prisoners on interim bail within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2539<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018No justifiable cause for levelling scandalous and contemptuous allegations\u2019; Intemperate remarks & contemptuous language, warned against<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal writ petition filed seeking directions for an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (\u2018CBI\u2019) into a case of a forged and fabricated will, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching the Court directly instead of the jurisdictional Court concerned by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019). The Court also held that not only did the petitioner fail to indicate how he was victimised in the matter at hand, but he also made scandalous remarks regarding the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism.<\/span> [Chandu Lal v. Maya Devi<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2489<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONVICTION<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Penetrative act by one is sufficient to convict all in the gang if there is common intention\u2019; Conviction in 21-years-old gang rape case, upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the convict by the Special Judge for offences punishable under Sections 366<\/a>, 376(2)(g)<\/a> and 342<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 3(2)(v)<\/a> of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/a> (\u20181989 Act\u2019), by the division bench of Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ. upheld the conviction of the convict found guilty of gang rape, rejecting the argument that he had not personally committed any act of penetration. The Court clarified that Section 376(2)(g)<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> if a penetrative act was carried out by even one person, all others sharing a common intention could also be held liable. Thus, while maintaining the conviction of the convict under Sections 366<\/a>, 342<\/a>, and 376(2)(g)<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. Further, to bring the sentence in line with that imposed on the servant for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), the Court modified the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the convict to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000\/- and a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of non-payment of the fine. [Raju v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 997<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Unnatural sexual intercourse by husband without wife\u2019s consent punishable under Section 377<\/a> IPC<\/a><\/p>\n

In an application filed under Section 528<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, seeking to quash the entire proceedings of a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498-A<\/a>, 323<\/a>, 504<\/a>, 506<\/a>, and 377<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, (\u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, including the chargesheet and the summoning\/cognizance order, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal*, J. declined to quash the case, and held unnatural sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife without her consent, even if she is above 18 years, would be punishable under Section 377<\/a> IPC<\/a> though that may not be rape as per Section 375<\/a> IPC<\/a>. [Imran Khan v. State of U.P<\/span>., 2025 SCC OnLine All 2791<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Even seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse\u2019; Sentence of an advocate who threatened\/abused woman judge in courtroom, upheld<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner (\u2018accused\u2019) challenging the order on sentence dated 28-9-2019 and praying for leniency, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that it was a matter of deep concern that, at times, even the seat of justice cannot guarantee immunity from gendered abuse. The Court stated that the seat of a judicial officer had its own dignity and was sacrosanct for members of the community who appeared before her. If such an officer was not able to get adequate justice for herself, it might leave a scar or hurt dignity that could not be permitted. [Sanjay Rathore v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3719<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Inquiry Committee appears to be hand in gloves with RDVV\u2019; SIT Probe ordered into Sexual Harassment allegations against VC of RDVV<\/p>\n

In a writ petition seeking an impartial investigation alleging sexual harassment at the workplace by invoking the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, by a female employee of Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (RDVV) against the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the university, a single-judge bench of Vishal Mishra, J., took a strong stance against \u201chigh-handedness on the part of the respondents-authorities\u201d and directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for investigation. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Forced Unnatural Sex not punishable under S. 377<\/a> IPC<\/a>, but attracts S. 498-A if coupled with cruelty\/assault<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed by the applicant-husband under Section 482<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC), seeking quashment of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 377<\/a>, 323<\/a>, and 498-A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) and the consequent criminal proceedings in sessions trial, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., partially allowed the applicant and held that the offence of marital rape, including forced unnatural sex, is not recognized under Section 377<\/a> IPC<\/a>, but such acts still attracts Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> if accompanied by cruelty or assault. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL TRIAL<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Faming of mandatory guidelines proposed for expeditious appraisal of criminal appeals<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition revolving around 4 petitioners seeking a direction to the Jharkhand High Court for pronouncement of judgments in their respective Criminal Appeals; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., took note after the directions issued by them via order dated 5-5-2025, and during the pendency of these proceedings, the judgments in all the four Criminal Appeals have been pronounced by the High Court. It was noted that consequently, all the four petitioners have been released from custody as of 13-05-2025. [Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1152<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Not common for rustic persons to be aware of mental illness\u2019; Mother\u2019s conviction converted from under S. 302 to S. 304 Part II IPC for killing two minor daughters<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal against Chhattisgarh High Court\u2019s decision, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the present accused\/ mother under Section 302<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) for killing her two minor daughters was upheld, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. partly allowed the appeal. The Court said that in the light of the strange, bizarre and inexplicable behaviour of the accused, there was no other plausible explanation that could be attached to her conduct in the given circumstances, other than to infer that she was under certain impaired mental condition which the accused described as being under the influence of invisible power. [Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 955<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Section 377<\/a> of IPC<\/a> cannot be applied to criminalise marital sex<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (\u2018husband\u2019) seeking to set aside the order dated 16-2-2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC)(RC), Rohini Courts, Delhi (\u2018Sessions Court\u2019), Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that in the context of a marital relationship, Section 377<\/a> of IPC<\/a> could be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife. Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1. The Court stated that no prima facie case was made out against the husband for the offence under Section 377<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019). Therefore, the impugned order directing the framing of charge was unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside. [Sunny Kant v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3493<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DEFAMATION<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Videos allegedly defaming State\u2019s Cabinet Minister Girish Dattatray Mahajan directed to be taken down<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a case wherein, a suit was filed by the applicant for defamation on account of false, reckless, and unsubstantiated allegations made by Respondent 1 in videos uploaded by him on his YouTube channel in respect of the applicant, a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., opined that the statements made by Respondent 1 as discerned from the transcripts were per se defamatory. Thus, the Court directed taking down of the defamatory videos and held that till the present suit was pending, Respondents 1 and 2 were restrained by a permanent order and injunction, from making, publishing, or republishing and\/or broadcasting or rebroadcasting and\/or causing to be published or republished and\/or causing to be broadcasting any defamatory and\/or libellous or slanderous statements, videos, articles, interview or statement in any form whatsoever or the statements in relation to which the applicant took objection to, on any of the social media portals including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. [Girish Dattatray Mahajan v. Anil Thatte<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1748<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY<\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018No averment that he refused to marry her, or marriage wasn\u2019t possible\u2019; Man accused of raping fianc\u00e9 under false promise to marry, discharged<\/p>\n

In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the order of the Trial Court framing charges against him under Sections 376(2)(n)<\/a> and 417<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 4<\/a> of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a> (\u2018Dowry Act\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., allowed the petition, holding that there was not even a single averment in the complaint that there was a false promise to marry the complainant or that the marriage between them had become impossible. The Court also held that there was no material before the Trial Court to frame charges against him under Section 4 of the Dowry Act. [Raj Kumar Sharma v. State of H.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1680<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

FIR<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Transferring case to another State reflected mechanical approach\u2019; Registration of regular FIR directed instead of Zero FIR as offence occurred within jurisdiction<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition seeking to direct Respondents 2 and 3 to restore the investigation of the registered FIR, by passing the appropriate action for illegal transfer of the case to Respondent 4, Sanjeev Narula, J.*, stated that the act of transferring the case to another state, when an offence also clearly occurred within its own jurisdiction, reflected a mechanical approach, which undermined the gravity of the petitioner\u2019s allegations. The Court stated that the registration of a Zero FIR instead of a regular FIR, not only delayed the investigative process, but potentially compromised the integrity of the evidence collection and investigation. Thus, the Court directed Respondents 2 and 3 to register a regular FIR, instead of Zero FIR and conduct an investigation. [X5 v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2918<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

FURLOUGH<\/p>\n

GUJARAT HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Narayan Sai\u2019s furlough plea in Surat rape case, rejected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Articles 21<\/a> and 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> by Narayan Sai, son of Asaram Bapu who had been convicted for inter alia rape, unnatural offences, outraging modesty, and criminal intimidation, challenging the rejection of his furlough leave application by the Inspector General of Prison (\u2018IGP\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of M. R. Mengdey, J., rejected the petition holding that the conduct of him and his disciples indicated that his release on furlough leave could be detrimental to the law and order situation at large, and there was a possibility of an untoward incident happening. [Narayan v. State of Gujarat<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1725<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HATE SPEECH OR CONTROVERSIAL SPEECH<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | S<\/span>uo motu action taken against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for using \u2018scurrilous language\u2019 against Col. Sofia Quraishi<\/span><\/p>\n

While taking suo motu cognizance based on media reports (Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar, Nayi Duniya \u2014 all dated 14-05-2025) and video footage circulating on digital platforms regarding a disparaging speech made by a sitting BJP minister Vijay Shah, against Col. Sofia Quraishi, a senior officer of the Indian Army, a Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minster Vijay Shah by the evening of 14-05-2025, under Sections 152<\/a>, 196(1)(b)<\/a>, and 197(1)(c)<\/a> of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS). [Court on its Own Motion v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3895<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Saket Gokhale directed to publish apology to Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri; Sealed cover apology, rejected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The present suit was filed by the petitioner, Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, seeking direction to the respondent, Saket Gokhale, to take down\/delete the offending tweets from public domain and sought an unconditional apology from him. A Single Judge Bench of Anish Dayal, J., after considering that the decree in Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 356, was passed on 1-7-2024, wherein the respondent was directed to publish an apology, but still had not complied with the judgment\/decree, held that the apology as directed by the judgment\/decree dated 1-7-2024, should be tendered by the respondent within two weeks from the date of the present order. [Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3257<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INVESTIGATION<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Culture of copy pasting statements is dangerous\u2019; State directed to make guidelines for investigating officers on how to record the statements<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., after considering the issue of statements being copy pasted by the investigating officers even in serious offences, directed the State to come out with specific guidelines for the investigating officers and also in respect of, how to record the statements. The Court further, appointed Advocate Mukul Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae and directed him to collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State Government to avoid situations of copy paste and to overall improve the quality of investigation. [Amol Samadhan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1743<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | CBI cannot be rendered helpless in investigating further if during trap proceedings more information is received about offence\/offenders<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 482<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR registered for the offences under Section 61(2)<\/a> of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> and Sections 7<\/a>, 8<\/a>, 9<\/a>, 10<\/a> and 12<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> (\u2018PC Act\u2019), Shalinder Kaur, J.*, stated that undoubtedly, the allegations of corruption must be dealt with zero tolerance. When, during a trap proceeding, further information was received about the offence\/offenders, the CBI could not be rendered helpless in proceeding with further investigations. The Court stated that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, prima facie, showed that the allegation against the petitioner could not be lightly brushed aside at this stage. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitioner\u2019s application for the grant of anticipatory bail. [Arun Kumar Jindal<\/span> v. Central Bereau of Investigation<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3026<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

JUVENILES<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | JJ Act\u2019s jurisdictional primacy over NIA Act in trials involving juveniles, affirmed<\/p>\n

In a reference made by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal as to \u201cWhether the trial of a juvenile accused of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) investigated by National Investigation Agency (NIA) is to be conducted by the Special Court under the NIA Act or the Children\u2019s Court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015<\/a> (JJ Act),\u201d a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., affirmed that the Children\u2019s Court remains the sole competent forum for the trial of a juvenile accused even for heinous offences under scheduled Acts like UAPA. The Court reinforced the doctrine that \u201cbeneficial legislations must be interpreted to advance their objective and not frustrate it\u201d. [In Reference v. Memo No. 454\/2024 Bhopal dated 23\/11\/2024<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4003<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Minor sexual assault survivor\u2019s right to continue Pregnancy upheld; Comprehensive State support directed<\/p>\n

In a case dealing with minor sexual assault survivor\u2019s right to continue Pregnancy, a writ petition was registered upon a reference made by Additional Sessions Judge with regards to whether the decision of the pregnant minor and her parents to continue with the pregnancy must be respected despite the pregnancy arising out of sexual assault. Deciding the case, a single-judge bench of Vinay Saraf, J., upheld the reproductive autonomy of the minor and her guardians. The Court held that under the facts of the present case, no direction for medical termination can be issued, especially when the victim and her parents have explicitly chosen to continue the pregnancy. [X15 v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4005<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

NDPS<\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Mere fact that contraband was found in transparent bag cannot alone be evidence of innocence or police malice\u2019: Bail refused to NDPS accused<\/p>\n

In a regular bail application filed by an accused for an FIR registered against him under Section 22(c)<\/a> of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/a> (\u2018NDPS Act\u2019), a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., rejected the application holding that since the accused was arrested with a commercial quantity of the contraband, the rigors of Section 37<\/a> of the NDPS Act<\/a> would apply to him as there was nothing on record to show that he did not commit the subject offence or would not commit similar offences if he was released on bail. Read<\/span> more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Anticipatory bail granted in NDPS Case due to absence of nexus between accused and drug recovery<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition seeking pre-arrest bail for offences under Sections 8 (c)<\/a>, 22(c)<\/a>, 23(b)<\/a>, 27A<\/a> and 29<\/a> of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/a> (\u2018NDPS Act\u2019), Amit Mahajan, J., granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO and conditions as laid down by the Court. [Joy Mitra<\/span> v. Narcotics Control Bureau<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> P<\/span>etition challenging 20 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment given to convict under S. 6 of POCSO Act, dismissed<\/p>\n

While considering the instant petition challenging Bombay High Court\u2019s decision to upholding the conviction of the petitioner (convict) under 6 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) thereby sentencing him to 20 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., dismissed the petition finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. [Sachin v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1255<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Sensitization of officials and creation of more POCSO Courts to combat delays in child rape trials, urged<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu writ petition concerning the alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents, the Division Bench consisting of Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., urged both the Central Government and the State Governments to take appropriate steps to sensitize officials involved in the investigation of POCSO cases. The Bench also emphasised the need to prioritize the creation of additional courts dedicated to hearing cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (\u2018POCSO Act\u2019) and to ensure that chargesheets were filed within the mandatory period stipulated in the Act. Furthermore, the Court directed that the trials be completed within the time frame envisaged by the Act. [In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1130<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> POCSO convict spared from sentence citing marriage to victim; Highlights injustice to victim by family, society and legal system<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Court in 2023, following the Calcutta High Court ruling that controversially urged adolescent girls to \u201ccontrol\u201d their sexual urges rather than \u201cgiving in to two minutes of pleasure\u201d, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, held that although the accused was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (\u2018POCSO Act\u2019), he would not undergo sentence. The Court observed that, in law, it was obligated to sentence the convict and impose the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute. However, in this case, society, the victim\u2019s family, and the legal system had already inflicted sufficient injustice upon the victim. Having endured significant trauma and agony, the Court did not wish to compound her suffering by sending her husband to jail. [In Re : Right to Privacy of Adolescents<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1200<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

QUASHMENT OF FIR\/PROCEEDINGS<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> FIR filed by a wife who alleged that her husband lied to her about his profession, quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal challenging the non-quashment of FIR filed by an estranged wife on the ground that she was lied about her husband\u2019s profession; the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., opined that the FIR against the husband and his family was filed for totally extraneous reasons which should have been quashed by the Gujarat High Court. [Rohan v. State of Gujarat<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1056<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Criminal charges against anti-human trafficking activists branded as criminals for raid to rescue bonded labourers and minor children from brick kiln, quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by anti-trafficking activists challenging a cryptic order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal case against them for offences under Sections 186<\/a> and 353<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), the division bench of PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., quashed the criminal charges. The Court held that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Regarding Section 186<\/a> IPC<\/a>, the Court emphasized that for an offence to be made out under this section, obstruction must be accompanied by the requisite mens rea, meaning the intention to prevent a public servant from discharging his official duties. The Court found that the appellants\u2019 actions were not intended to impede the interrogation but to ensure that it was conducted in a more effective and secure environment. This factual context negated the existence of the mens rea, or intention, to obstruct official duty, leading the Court to quash the charges. [Umashankar Yadav v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1066<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u201cImpugned order suffers from judicial caprice and arbitrariness\u201d; Karnataka HC order quashing 498A IPC<\/a> case against Husband, set aside<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Karnataka High Court, order whereby the High Court quashed proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 355<\/a>, 504<\/a>, 506<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) against the husband, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ. noted that although an earlier order had refused to quash the proceedings against some of the in-laws, the impugned order, quashing the case against the husband, made no reference to this prior decision. The Court found this omission inexplicable and emphasized that it was incumbent upon the Judge to refer to the earlier judgment of the co-ordinate bench and provide reasons for arriving at a different conclusion. Remarking that inconsistent decisions emerging from different benches undermine public trust in the judiciary and reduce litigation to a matter of chance, the Court found that the impugned order suffered from judicial caprice and arbitrariness and, on that ground as well, was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the proceedings against the husband be revived and continue in accordance with law. [Renuka v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 970<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Petition to quash FIR against man accused of repeated rape, unnatural sex, forcing abortion and threatening to circulate nude photographs and videos, dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR registered for offences under Sections 376<\/a>\/377<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/313<\/a>\/506<\/a>\/509<\/a>\/34<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, Girish Kathpalia, J., stated that it was not satisfied that the impugned FIR and\/or the consequent proceedings could presently be treated as abuse of process of the court in any manner or that quashing the same would secure the ends of justice. On the contrary, if the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, led to the registration of FIR and the consequent proceedings was not truthful, quashing the same would be tantamount to encouraging the abuse of process of criminal justice machinery. Therefore, the Court stated that it was not the fit case to quash the registered FIR and accordingly, dismissed the present petition. [X7 v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2796<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Plea to quash FIRs or consolidate investigation against Ex-MLA Pramod Jain Bhaya, dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a batch of petitions filed under Sections 482<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>1 and Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> seeking quashment of multiple FIRs registered against former MLA Pramod Jain Bhaya, his family members, friends, and associates, and alternatively, directions for clubbing of all FIRs and transfer of investigation to an IPS officer posted outside Baran and Jhalawar districts, a single-judge bench of Sameer Jain, J., dismissed all the petitions and held that the FIRs are not liable to be quashed at the threshold, the prayer for clubbing of FIRs is legally unsustainable and the plea for transfer of investigation is vague and unsupported by specific averments. [Hussain Mohammad v. Tolaram<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 1742<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Doctors have no incentive to willfully endanger life in trust-driven healthcare ecosystem\u2019; FIR alleging Medical Negligence, quashed<\/p>\n

In a petition seeking quashment of FIR alleging gross medical negligence by Vasundhara Hospital, Jodhpur and its doctors leading to the death of complainant\u2019s daughter-in-law, an RAS officer, a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., quashed the FIR on not finding any credible evidence of intentional wrongdoing, reckless indifference, or disregard for standard care, especially when an independent expert committee also did not found any lapse warranting further action. [Vinod Shaily v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2173<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> FIR against an Advocate, who used the word \u2018bhangi\u2019 in a video complaining about garbage, quashed<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a present case, a criminal application was filed by the applicant for quashing FIR dated 7-8-2023 registered with Jalgaon City Police Station and the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, under the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)<\/a> and 3(1)(s)<\/a> of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/a> (\u2018the Atrocities Act\u2019). The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., after considering the video made by the applicant, wherein while complaining about the garbage in an area, he used words like \u201cBhangiwada\u201d and \u201cMehtarwada\u201d, opined that the said words could not be considered as insulting the members of Rukhi or Walmiki caste and the intention behind stating that, was only to point out the area from where the pigs had come near the garbage. The Court thus quashed and set aside the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the applicant. [Kedar Kishor Bhusari v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1750<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Police Officers cannot compel citizens or its employees to help them\u2019; FIR against officer who showed difficulty to provide employees as panch witness, quashed<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a case wherein, a FIR was registered against the applicant, serving as the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Dharashiv, who on the police officer\u2019s letter, showed his incapability to supply his employees working under him, to act as panch witnesses, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that it was very unfortunate that still a mentality prevailed in the Police Department that everybody should give preference to the work directed by the police or to help the police. The Court stated that when the applicant as the head of the said Department showed his difficulty, it could not be taken as willful disobedience or refusal of any order, and thus, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the FIR registered against the applicant.<\/span> [Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2044<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Right to speedy trial not an abstract or illusory safeguard, cannot be whittled down in MCOCA cases<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed by the applicant (\u2018accused\u2019) under Section 439<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019), seeking regular bail in the FIR registered for offence under Sections 3(1)<\/a>\/3(4)<\/a>\/3(5)<\/a> of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018MCOCA\u2019), Sanjeev Narula, J.*, as of today, the accused had been in custody for nearly nine years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remained far from its conclusion. Further, the status report filed by the State indicated that out of 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 were examined so far. Thus, the Court stated that the inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violate the accused\u2019s fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution. Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. [Jitender Dixit v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3445<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUICIDE<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Kota Students Suicide Case | Interim directions deferred while awaiting Supreme Court action<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Court in 2016 in response to an alarming rise in student suicides in Kota, Rajasthan, a city known as the coaching hub of India, a Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., and Mukesh Rajpurohit, J., while expressing deep concern over the continued loss of student lives, chose to defer issuing further directions in light of the Supreme Court\u2019s ongoing proceedings and the respondents\u2019 intention to seek a transfer. [Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2236<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

UNDERTRIALS<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Undertrials must first seek Court permission to travel abroad before applying for issuance or renewal of passport<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed for directing the Regional Passport Officer, for issuance of passport to him as per the notification dated 25-08-1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla*, JJ. held that in all cases where criminal proceedings were pending and where the issuance of a passport had been denied under the operation of Section 6(2)(f)<\/a> of the Passport Act, 1967<\/a>, the under-trial, as a condition precedent, had to first seek permission or an NOC from the Court concerned, where the trial was pending, to travel abroad or depart, for which a passport was required. Only then, as a condition subsequent, could the applicant apply to the passport authority for the issuance of the passport for a period as specified in the permission order or for the period specified in the notification dated 25-08-1993. [Mohd. Talha v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 2948<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

VICTIM RIGHTS<\/p>\n

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Victim\u2019s right to privacy upheld; Accused denied permission to examine her social media in Court<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 528<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, against the Trial Court\u2019s refusal to allow examination of the social media accounts of the prosecutrix and play audio concerning her during the trial, a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, J., dismissed the petition holding that it might compromise the privacy of the prosecutrix. Additionally, the Court held that the contentions raised by the accused- Food Inspector could not be examined by the Court because the adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version did not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019). [Prahlad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 5068<\/a>] Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In News<\/h3>\n