Criminal law

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.

The Supreme Court (SC) addressed the issue of whether the complaint filed by a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, suppressing material facts, is valid in Rekha Sharad Ushir v Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd [ 2025 INSC 399].

An additional witness summoned as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be examined as a Prosecution Witness if the court finds that such a person ought to have been examined as a prosecution witness, but was omitted due to oversight, mistake or for any other reason.

On receipt of a written complaint, under Section 2(d) CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate or Special Judge, who is competent to take cognizance of the case, have five options to take, says the High Court of Kerala in Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan & Others [2025:KER:26809].

A direction for an investigation by the CBI issued by a constitutional court is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused, and the matter for entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically the discretion of the court, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Ramachandraiah & Another v M Manjula & Others [2025 INSC 556].

The Supreme Court (SC), in a catena of cases, has set some broad guidelines for transferring cases to the CBI. Kerala High Court also says involvement of CBI should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.