Criminal law

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].

The Supreme Court (SC), in Ramesh (deceased) v The State of Kerala, says if the accused-appellant dies during the pendency of a criminal appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the appeal does not abate. The Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with abatement of appeals.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Union of India & Another v Tarsem Singh & Others has declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the National Highways Act (NH Act), to be unconstitutional.