Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court ruled in Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala [2025: KER:30823] that the State Government must give primacy to the opinion of the concerned District Judge during the consultative process for the appointment of Public Prosecutors, and mandated that the State frame internal guidelines ensuring strict conformity with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The judgment underscored the Supreme Corut direction that such appointments should be made only taking into consideration the merit of the candidate and no other consideration.

While setting aside an order permitting the recall of a rape survivor for further cross-examination, the Supreme Court, in The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed [2026 INSC 584], observed that witnesses, particularly survivors of heinous crimes such as rape, should not be repeatedly subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination merely because of a change in defence counsel or an earlier oversight. The Court made this observation while considering the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In the absence of express permission from the Magistrate, the police cannot proceed with further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), after filing a closure report, the Supreme Court has reiterated in Paliniswamy Veeraraja & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [2026 INSC 561].

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.