Criminal law

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.

A person aggrieved by a cognizable offence committed by someone else must first inform the officer in charge of a police station, who is required to record it in writing, read it back to the informant, and obtain their signature, under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Proceedure,1967 (CrPC), says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.

The Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deal with discharge and framing of charge. The discharge of the accused arises when "the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.”

The High Court of Kerala (HCK), in Noushad K  v State of Kerala and Another [2025:KER:16338], says merely because the complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that her version is the gospel truth. Nowadays, there has been a tendency to make serious allegations of sexual assault against innocent people.

A law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation. But the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the court. The judgment of the court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal [2025 INSC 278].

The Supreme Court (SC) reaffirms that basing a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert’s evidence without substantial corroboration would be hazardous, in C. Kamalakkannan v State Of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 309].