Hon’ble Madras High Court issued guidelines to Family courts to cirumvent the procedural wrangles that are being faced by the parties before the Family court
Hon’ble Madras High Court issued guidelines to Family courts to cirumvent the procedural wrangles that are being faced by the parties before the Family court.
N.I Act: Certain documents were suppressed in the statement on oath and made out a false case
Appellant challenged the issuance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring a cheque issued to the respondent. The appellant argued that she had repaid a prior loan and that the second cheque was misused by the respondent, who failed to provide necessary loan documents despite requests. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the respondent suppressed material facts in the complaint, leading to an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the Apex Court quashed the complaint pending against the appellant, allowing her appeal while leaving open the respondent’s remedies for recovery of the alleged due amount.
Acquittal: Without establishing circumstantial evidence mere recovery of wheel spanner at the SOC with the accused finger prints on it would not be enough to hold the accused guilty
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has overturned the Madras High Court’s judgment that had sustained the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder while acquitting him of Section 148 IPC. The Apex Court found significant doubts regarding the reliability of witness testimonies, particularly the last seen evidence and extra-judicial confessions, which were deemed inadmissible. The prosecution’s failure to establish a clear connection between the appellant and the crime, along with procedural delays in presenting the FIR, led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction, resulting in appellant’s acquittal.
Section 204 Cr.P.C: No need to issue summons first; the accused’s attendance can best be secured at the court’s discretion by issuing a bailable or non-bailable warrant
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed a batch of appeals filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court granting anticipatory bail to several accused persons in a case involving serious economic offenses under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court held that Hon’ble High Court had passed the impugned orders without considering the mandatory conditions contained in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and ignoring the conduct of the respondents-accused, who had continuously avoided to follow the due process of law by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves, and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings. The Apex Court set aside the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and directed the respondents-accused to surrender themselves before the Special Court within one week. The Supreme Court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the bail applications of the respondents-accused would be decided by the Special Court in accordance with law.
Preliminary Enquiry: There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry under Section 13 or Section 17 of the PC Act only Lalita Kumari case headed it
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s order quashing the FIR against the respondent an Executive Engineer, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was registered based on a source report alleging that he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The High Court has quashed the FIR, citing a lack of preliminary enquiry by the Superintendent of Police (SP) before passing the order. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in corruption cases, but rather desirable, and that a detailed source report can be sufficient to proceed with the registration of an FIR, allowing the appeal and restoring the proceedings against respondent.
Part departure in chief-examination is not necessary to declare the entire witness as hostile
The Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside the Hon’ble High Court’s decision of acquitting the accused and further upheld the trial court’s decision of conviction of appellant/accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe. Reversing the Hon’ble High Court’s acquittal which had relied on minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, the Apex Court emphasized that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and documentary evidence, and that minor inconsistencies after a long delay in trial did not undermine the reliability of the witnesses. The accused was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fined, with no reduction in sentence despite his advanced age, and was ordered to surrender within two weeks.
N.I Act: Knowledge of Power of Attorney of an individual payee must be specifically stated and in the case of company being a payee the authorised person who has knowledge would be sufficient
N.I Act: Knowledge of Power of Attorney of an individual payee must be specifically stated and in the case of company being a payee the authorised person who has knowledge would be sufficient.
“She told us everything” is not dying declaration instead witness must depose what exactly deceased told him/her
This judgment concerns the acquittal of Hasim Sheikh, accused of murdering his wife Amina and their three daughters by setting them on fire. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including dying declarations and eyewitness testimony, but found critical procedural lapses such as failure to put key evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC and contradictions in witness statements. The Court noted the accused and a co-accused also suffered burn injuries, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. After reappreciation, the Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing the need for proper trial procedure and caution in relying on vulnerable evidence, dismissing the appeals while acknowledging the tragic nature of the incident.
Deprecated practice involving the relatives of husband for offence under section 498A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings against appellants who were accused in a dowry-related case filed by the de-facto complainant, the wife of the husband involved in the dispute. The appellants residing in Hyderabad and not living with the couple, faced omnibus and general allegations of instigating dowry demands without specific evidence. The Court relied on precedents like Geeta Mehrotra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana to emphasize the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against relatives not directly involved, cautioning against harassment through vague accusations in matrimonial disputes. Consequently, the Court held that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process and allowed the appeal to quash the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Quash: Accused undetected is not Referred Final report and Magistrate cannot accept the same
Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the RCS as ‘accused not detected’. Further investigation is necessary.
Application of mind during taking cognizance means to contemplate on the material submitted and not checking veracity of the same
In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed an appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside a cognizance order against the appellants, who were accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. The appellants, including the first wife of the deceased Vishnu Sahu, contended that the allegations made by the informant, who claimed to be the second wife, were baseless and constituted a civil dispute disguised as a criminal case. The Supreme Court found that the Additional Judicial Commissioner had correctly taken cognizance based on prima facie evidence and that the High Court’s remand for further disclosure of evidence was erroneous. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the cognizance order, allowing the case to proceed, while clarifying that the appellants could present their defense during the trial.
Clarifying Arbitration Jurisdiction: The Role of Section 21 Notice, Section 11 Application, and Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle explained
The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2025 addresses whether service of a Section 21 notice invoking arbitration and joinder in a Section 11 application are mandatory prerequisites for an arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over a party, and clarifies the source and scope of such jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that while a Section 21 notice is necessary to fix the commencement date of arbitration and for limitation purposes, non-service of such notice on a party does not bar their impleadment if they are parties to the arbitration agreement. Similarly, the Section 11 application for appointment of arbitrators involves only a prima facie examination and does not limit the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction derives from the consent embodied in the arbitration agreement, and it has the competence to determine its own jurisdiction, including whether non-signatories can be joined. Applying these principles, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that respondent nos. 2 and 3, though not served with the Section 21 notice or joined in the Section 11 application, could be impleaded as parties since they were parties to the arbitration agreement and involved in the contractual relationship. The judgment emphasizes the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz and rejects the view that procedural formalities alone determine jurisdiction, underscoring the tribunal’s power to decide on joinder and scope of disputes.
Despite murdering wife and 4 children Hon’ble Supreme Court converted appellant’s death row into life sentence
This Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment involves appellant, who was convicted for the brutal murder of his wife and four children, along with charges of rape and evidence tampering. The trial and Hon’ble High Court confirmed his guilt based on motive, last seen evidence, conduct, and scientific proof, including DNA linking him to the sexual assault. Although initially sentenced to death, considering his good conduct in prison, mental health issues, and lack of prior criminal record, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the need for lifelong incarceration.
Principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence
This case concerns the validity of administrative actions taken by banks under the RBI’s Master Directions on Frauds, which declared certain companies’ bank accounts fraudulent without prior hearing, and the consequent criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI. The Hon’ble High Court quashed both the administrative actions and criminal proceedings, citing violation of natural justice principles (audi alteram partem). The Apex Court clarified that while administrative actions require adherence to natural justice, no such hearing is required before FIR registration, which is a separate criminal process. It set aside the Hon’ble High Courts’ quashing of FIRs, restored the criminal proceedings, and directed the banks and RBI to follow natural justice principles in administrative actions going forward, allowing fresh proceedings consistent with these principles.
Sanction not necessary for the public servants who have conspired and issued patta in favour of some other person other than the property owner
This case involves a dispute over property ownership following the death of Venkatachalam, who had executed two wills: one in favour of his daughters, Kaveriammal and Papammal, and amending the first one he executed another will in favour of his nephew Mr. K.Ashokan. The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged conspiracy and fraud related to property claims, arguing that they had rightful ownership based on the earlier will. However, the court found that the allegations presented a prima facie case for investigation, as the petitioners had allegedly conspired to obtain a patta (land title) by suppressing the later will. The court dismissed the petitions, allowing the investigation to proceed and directed the police to file a final report within twelve weeks.
Dowry death: Complainant displayed honesty by making allegations only against the appellant and not implicating other family members unnecessarily
In this case, the appellant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased (name is Kusum), was initially convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for dowry harassment leading to Kusum’s death. The Hon’ble High Court acquitted her of these charges but convicted/converted the appellant under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide by sentencing her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, considering her old age. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld this conviction and sentence, finding credible evidence of continuous dowry harassment and abuse by the appellant that led to the deceased’s suicide, and dismissed the appeal.
Limitation to initiate contempt proceedings is within one year either by filing an application or by the Court issuing notice Suo motu
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellants for criminal contempt of court for fabricating and using forged interim orders of the High Court of Madras to obstruct execution proceedings. The Apex Court found cogent evidence including confessions, police investigation reports, and forensic analysis proving their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. It clarified that the limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not bar suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the court within one year of the contempt act, even if formal notice was issued later. The Court emphasized the judiciary’s duty to protect the administration of justice from fraudulent acts and modified the sentence from six months to one month imprisonment, confirming the conviction to uphold judicial integrity.
Evolution of FIR Registration with Comparative analysis of CrPC Sections 154 & 156(3) and BNSS sections 173 & 175(3)
If animus between the accused and complainant is not proved presumption under Section 20 of PCAct would not arise against accused
This appeal arises from the conviction of Paritala Sudhakar, a Revenue Inspector, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000 in connection with a compensation claim for drought-damaged trees. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Hon’ble High Court upheld the conviction. On appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including the absence of independent witnesses to the demand and discrepancies in the sequence of events during the trap, led the Apex Court to conclude that the guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence. It extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, emphasising the need for reliable and trustworthy evidence in corruption cases. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was held inapplicable due to lack of proof of demand. The judgments below were quashed, and the appellant was granted relief accordingly.
To register FIR in non-cognizable offence prior permission of Magistrate under section 155 (2) Cr.P.C was necessary
must have, non cognizable offence, magistrate permission, permission, not final report, proviso to complaint, complaint proviso, magistrate permission mandatory, must have non cognizable fir,
An offence under section 13(1)(e) PC Act can be abetted by any other person who is a non-public servant
The appellant, an Assistant Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust, was convicted alongside her then-husband for abetting the acquisition of disproportionate assets under IPC Section 109 read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from investigations revealing that the husband, a public servant, amassed assets disproportionate to his known income, some held in the appellant’s name. Both trial and High Courts upheld their convictions, finding the appellant actively involved in concealing illicit wealth. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, emphasizing that non-public servants can be convicted for abetment under the Act, and dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant to surrender. The judgment clarifies the scope of abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions related to public servant corruption.
Since stamp vendors are getting remunerations from the government they are construed as Public Servants
In this case Aman Bhatia, a licensed stamp vendor, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 2 over the face value of a Rs. 10 stamp paper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the broad legislative intent behind the PC Act’s definition of “public servant,” affirming that licensed stamp vendors performing a public duty and remunerated by the government through discounts qualify as public servants. However, the Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural delays. This judgment emphasizes a purposive interpretation of Anti-Corruption laws to curb corruption while upholding the principle that conviction requires clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Mere repeating the exact words in a complaint like a mantra would not make the accused responsible for the company’s day-to-day affairs
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment addressed the issue of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning a director, Mrs. Ranjana Sharma, of a company that defaulted on a loan and issued a dishonored cheque. The Court held that the complaint’s averments, stating that Mrs. Sharma was responsible for the day-to-day affairs, management, and working of the company, sufficiently met the statutory requirement of being “in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business” under Section 141. The Court emphasized that exact wording of the statute need not be mechanically repeated if the substance of the complaint fulfills the legal requirements, rejecting the High Court’s quashing of proceedings against her for lack of specific averments. It clarified that mere directorship does not automatically impose liability, but where a director is shown to be in charge and responsible, vicarious liability applies. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against Mrs. Sharma were reinstated to proceed in accordance with law.
Can’t claim false promise to marry if the relationship becomes distant or goes sour
In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court of India quashed the proceedings against Amol Bhagwan Nehul, who was accused of forcible sexual intercourse and unnatural sex under various IPC sections, on the grounds that the relationship between the parties was consensual and prolonged, undermining the allegations of coercion or assault. The Court noted the absence of medical evidence, the improbability of the complainant maintaining a relationship with the appellant if assaulted, and the delay in filing the FIR, concluding that the case appeared to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, the Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of the quashing petition and discharged the appellant, emphasizing that breaches of promise to marry should not be criminalized and warning against misuse of criminal law provisions in such matters.
Gangsters Act: Mere reiteration of vague allegations from subject FIR made the appellant to stand trial and the same amount to abuse of process of law
The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 777-778 of 2025 quashed the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal, arising from FIR No. 850 of 2018. The Court held that the subject FIR and gang-chart were based on vague and general allegations without sufficient material to prima facie establish the existence of a gang as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, particularly lacking evidence of violence or disturbance of public order. It also found procedural lapses in the approval of the gang-chart, including non-compliance with mandatory rules requiring independent application of mind by competent authorities. The investigation and chargesheet were criticized for being superficial and not substantiating the allegations. The Court emphasized that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify continuation of proceedings if no offence is disclosed and underscored the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of process and harassment. Consequently, the High Court’s refusal to quash was overturned, and the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of the legal process.
THE MARRIAGE OF PARADOX: LOVE, LAW, LIBERTY
The Marriage of Paradox: Love, Law Libery – The author of this Article is an LL.M student studying at “The Central University of Tamil Nadu in Thiruvarur” -jamesraja23@students.cutn.ac.in 9123561024024.
