No Pre-Cognizance Hearing for Accused in Cheque Dishonour Cases under BNSS

Posted inNegotiable Instruments
n cheque dishonour cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court has held that an accused person does not have a right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. [2025 INSC 1158], the Court clarified that the inquiry conducted by a Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not require the participation of the prospective accused.

Demand Notice in Cheque Dishonour Case Must State Exact Cheque Amount to be Valid

Posted inNegotiable Instruments
In Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul [2025 INSC 1133], the Supreme Court has reiterated a mandatory requirement for a valid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. For the complaint to be maintainable, the statutory demand notice sent to the drawer of the cheque must demand the exact amount covered by the dishonoured cheque.

An Unmarried Daughter Can Claim Reasonable Wedding Expenses from Her Father

Posted inFamily, Marriage & Divorce
In a case Akza Rajan v. Rajan M.S [2023/KER/23485], the High Court of Kerala made a significant ruling about a father's duty to pay for his daughters' wedding expenses. The court ruled that unmarried daughters, aged 21 and 26, have a legal right to receive a reasonable amount for their marriages from their father, not just a moral one. This right, the court declared, applies to all fathers regardless of their religion. 

In Anticipatory Bail, Applicant Must Approach the Sessions Court Before the High Court

Posted inCriminal law
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.

Four-Step Test for Quashing an FIR: SC

Posted inCriminal law
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).

Loss of Consortium includes Spousal, Parental, and Filial Rights

Posted inMotor Vehicles Act
The law was clarified by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in The New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020). Relying on the principles established by a two-judge bench in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram & others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the Court recognized three distinct categories of consortium: spousal, parental, and filial.