Crimes Against Women

The Supreme Court judgment, in the Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali [2025 INSC 1155], directed that the High Court Chief Justices, on their administrative side, may issue a circular for the district judiciary.

In Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026 INSC 124], the Supreme Court cautioned against the growing trend of criminalizing failed consensual relationships. The Court emphasized that…

The Supreme Court observed in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026 INSC 124] that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case.

In the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 879], the Supreme Court observed that the mere breakdown of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot lead to the initiation of criminal proceedings for rape.

The High Court of Kerala in its judgement in the case XXX v State of Kerala and Another (2022 (1) KLD 780) said that a married woman, who clearly knows that the person who had sex with him cannot legally marry her when her marriage with another person subsists, cannot accuse the person on the charge of rape for giving false promise to marry.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal [2025 INSC 734], states that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), particularly its Section 12, makes it very clear that an application for the reliefs provided under Sections 18 to 22 can be made only by an aggrieved person or on her behalf, says the High Court of Kerala in Shynil & Others v State of Kerala & Others [2024:KER:89997].

On 3rd December 2024, the Supreme Court (SC), in Aureliano Fernandes v The State of Goa, passed comprehensive directions for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is basically civil in nature. Therefore there is no requirement for a party to be personally present as such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, says the SC in Vishal Shah v Monalisha Gupta & Others.

The provisions in the criminal law, which are meant for the protection and empowerment of women, are sometimes being used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Rinku Baheti v Sandesh Sharda [2024 INSC 1014].