Criminal law

The Supreme Court recently reinforced this view in Mohammed Rasal C. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., noting the consistent practice across most states. The Court clarified that while High Courts can entertain direct applications in special or extra-ordinary circumstances, these reasons must be recorded in writing. This aligns with the five-judge bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of UP & Anr., which held that it is for the concerned judge to determine if such special circumstances exist.

In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, the Supreme Court, noting that this power was not always being used effectively, laid down a clear four-step process for High Courts to consider when hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

In Biju v. PK Ayyappan [2025: KER:43956], the Kerala High Court has affirmed that when a police case and a private complaint case concerning the same incident are before a Magistrate, both cases must be tried together.

In Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. [ 2025 INSC 1020], the Supreme Court held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments once signed. The only exception expressly provided in the statute is for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.

In the Indian criminal justice system, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) serves as a critical procedural safeguard. It is designed to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious, or malicious criminal proceedings, thereby enabling them to perform their official duties without fear or undue harassment.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Madhukar & Others v The State of Maharashtra & Another. [ 2025 INSC 819], says the court has power under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings related to even rape, in exceptional circumstances, based on the facts of the case to secure ends of justice.

Even though the FIR was registered, the investigation is pending, and cognizance has not been taken, it cannot not be held that any criminal proceeding is pending against a person within the meaning of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Therefore, permission of the court where FIR is filed is not necessary for renewal of the passport, says Kerala High Court in Raju Kattakayam v State of Kerala & Another [2025: KER:40962].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Amlesh Kumar v The State of Bihar [2025 INSC 810], States that narco-analysis tests on accused individuals cannot be done without their consent.

An appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict, as it violates the principle of fairness and the statutory scheme under Section 386(b)(iii) Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which prohibits enhancement in such appeals, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Sachin v State Of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 518].

The Supreme Court (SC), in Rajesh Chaddha v State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 671] warns against the cruel misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and such other provisions of law against husband and in-laws by the wife and her relatives, without concrete evidence.

In G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram [2025 INSC 439], the Supreme Court held that prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is required before prosecuting a public servant, even when the alleged acts exceed official duties, provided such acts are reasonably connected with the discharge of official functions.