Criminal law

The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters [2025 INSC 1260] has held that threatening a person to give false evidence is a cognizable offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police can register an FIR and investigate such offences under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (CrPC).

Anticipatory bail is generally barred in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. The Supreme Court, in cases like Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020) and the later judgment in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain [2025 INSC 1067] clarified that this bar is not absolute. Courts must first determine if the allegations, on their face, constitute the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST Act.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) does not prohibit interim release of vehicles, which are seized for allegedly transporting contraband, under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), observed the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam [2025 INSC 32].

Any person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)…

In Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana [2025 INSC 1113], the Supreme Court clarified the principles governing whether multiple accused involved in offences arising from the same transaction should face…

under the new Kerala Procedure for Service of Summons Rules, 2025, framed under Section 64 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the police can serve summons directly or via electronic methods (Email, WhatsApp, or Telegram) upon receipt at the police station.

The Supreme Court recently reinforced this view in Mohammed Rasal C. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., noting the consistent practice across most states. The Court clarified that while High Courts can entertain direct applications in special or extra-ordinary circumstances, these reasons must be recorded in writing. This aligns with the five-judge bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of UP & Anr., which held that it is for the concerned judge to determine if such special circumstances exist.

In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, the Supreme Court, noting that this power was not always being used effectively, laid down a clear four-step process for High Courts to consider when hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

In Biju v. PK Ayyappan [2025: KER:43956], the Kerala High Court has affirmed that when a police case and a private complaint case concerning the same incident are before a Magistrate, both cases must be tried together.

In Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. [ 2025 INSC 1020], the Supreme Court held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments once signed. The only exception expressly provided in the statute is for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.

In the Indian criminal justice system, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) serves as a critical procedural safeguard. It is designed to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious, or malicious criminal proceedings, thereby enabling them to perform their official duties without fear or undue harassment.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Madhukar & Others v The State of Maharashtra & Another. [ 2025 INSC 819], says the court has power under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings related to even rape, in exceptional circumstances, based on the facts of the case to secure ends of justice.