Criminal law

In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], a Five-Judge Bench of this Court held that Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation, and restrictions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not apply to Constitutional Courts.

In Shone George v. Union of India & Anr. [2025:KER:66503], the Kerala High Court observed that as per Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, the applicant has to file a duly verified Petition, setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required, and the Court is bound to pass an Order on that Petition, except when the application is for certified copy of a Judgment.

For seeking quashing of an FIR (First Information Report) and consequential proceedings, a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be directly filed in the Supreme Court, observed the Supreme Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. [2025 INSC 1249].

A magistrate taking cognizance based on a protest complaint must consider the refer report filed by the police and pass a speaking order, the High Cout of Kerala observed in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr [2026: KER:772].

In Sivasankaran @ Sankaran Kutty v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:85261], the High Court of Kerala observed that CCTVs installed in a private residence for the safety and security of its occupants cannot be ordered to be removed based on a neighbor's Right to Privacy, unless it is proven that the cameras are being used for snooping.

In State of UP & Anr V Mohd Archad Khan & Anr [ 2025 INSC 1480], the Supreme Court of India directed that High Courts should not grant "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" protection while simultaneously declining to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors [SC 118 of 2018], the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court on December 12, 2025 acquitted the Malayalam actor Dileep in the much deliberated 2017 actress assault case.

In Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar ( Rohit) v. State of Gujarat [2025 INSC 1433], the Supreme Court issued directions to all the trial courts aiming to institutionalize a standardized format for cataloguing witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects. These directions intend to facilitate better comprehension and immediate reference for all stakeholders, including the Appellate Courts.

In Chandan Pasi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [2025 INSC 1371], the Supreme Court stressed that examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 (CrPC) is a non-negotiable duty, , to allow them to explain incriminating evidence against them. It is not a mere formality.

The Supreme Court, in The State Of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey [2025 INSC 1413], held that the police and investigating agencies have the power to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 106 of the BNSS, when a proceeding is initiated against them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

In Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh [2023 INSC 986], the Supreme Court categorically stated that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, it by itself ought not to be regarded by the courts in all cases as fatal to the prosecution.

In Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs State of NCT of Delhi [2025 INSC 1322], the Supreme Court issued a binding directive that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must ensure the electronic transmission of the witness's prior statements to them.