Criminal law

Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings (CrPC) are essentially civil in nature and should not be equated with criminal proceedings merely because they involve a penal consequence, says the SC in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato & Another [2025 INSC 55].

Every judgment is not meant to be a binding precedent, says the Supreme Court (SC) in NBCC (India) ltd. v The State of West Bengal & Others [2025 INSC 54].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Pruthvirajsinh N Jadeja(D) By Lrs. v Jayeshkumar Chhakaddasm Shah [2019 (9) SCC 533], says that it is a well settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.

Non-recovery of weapon used in the commission of the offence is of no consequences at all when the circumstances in the case established beyond doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of the victim, despite no recovery of weapon, says the High Court  of Kerala in Satheesh Babu v State of Kerala [2023:KER:78326].

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].

Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). But, that does not mean that it could not be done in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Kim Wansoo v State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [2025 INSC 8].

The Supreme Court says in Naresh Kumar & Anr. v The State of Karnataka & Anr [2024 INSC 196] that the High Court should not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

The prosecution of the offence of perjury or forgery coming under Section 195 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as the part of judicial proceedings can be done by a special procedure provided under 340 of the Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (CrPC).

The Supreme Court, in Arjun s/o Ratan Gaikwad v The State of Maharashtra & Another [2024 INSC 968], says preventive detention is a harsh measure, which cannot be invoked against every alleged breach of peace. The power can be invoked only when the act of the proposed detainee had a tendency of disturbing "public order”.

The Supreme Court (SC) Issued detailed procedural guidelines to be followed by the executive as well as the judiciary for handling mercy petitions and execution of death sentences so as to prevent delays in the process, in its judgement in State of Maharashtra and Others v Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Another with Connected Case [ 2024 INSC 947].