Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Supreme Court restored the 2002 acquittal of a telephone department cashier accused of criminal breach of trust over Rs 8.73 lakh of bill collections in 1993. The cashbook, daily registers and audit report that would have shown entrustment were never produced, the seizure from his house was not proved, and the High Court wrongly shifted the burden to him and sentenced him without hearing him on sentence (paras 13-25).

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that released two men convicted for a 2003 knife and gun attack in Bahraich on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused had never spent a day in custody, had a string of later criminal cases, and the victim remains disabled; the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders ruled out release on good conduct (paras 13-14).

The Supreme Court altered a conviction for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery (Section 394 IPC) to grievous hurt (Section 325), because the robbery rested only on the complainant's word, with no recovery or proof of the jewellery. Identification was upheld despite no test identification parade. Applying the cognate-offence rule in Section 222 CrPC, the Court cut the sentence to the time already served and ordered the appellant's release (paras 7-15).

The Supreme Court restored an attempt-to-murder charge under Section 307 IPC that the Rajasthan High Court had replaced with Section 308 because the victims' wounds were on non-vital parts of the body. At the charge stage the court only checks for a prima facie case; intention is gathered from all the circumstances, and the trial court can alter the charge under Section 216 CrPC if the evidence falls short (paras 8-13).

The Supreme Court quashed fresh proceedings against a man acquitted in 2007 of waging war against India under Sections 121-123 IPC, an acquittal the High Court upheld in 2019. Uttar Pradesh had obtained sanction under Section 196 CrPC in 2020 and restarted the case, treating the first trial as void. The Court held the acquittal final and the new prosecution barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution (paras 2-5, 9-12).

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court quashed an Anti-Corruption Bureau FIR against a police inspector and an ASI of Bikaner, holding that the recorded demand-verification conversations showed no demand or attempt to obtain an undue advantage, and that the complaint, filed by a REET-2021 cheating-case accused soon after his bail, was prima facie actuated by vengeance (paras 10-14).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs for cheating, forgery and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that a complainant's locus standi is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence (paras 10-11). The police cannot question a complainant's locus, civil and criminal proceedings can run together, and the police were entitled to investigate (paras 14-15, 19-21).

The Rajasthan High Court held that once the Anti Corruption Bureau's verification found a bribery complaint true and a trap was planned, the ACB had to register an FIR and investigate; it could not close the matter on a preliminary enquiry (paras 9, 11). It quashed the enquiry findings and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant, directed an FIR and a fair ACB investigation, and declined to transfer the case to the CBI (paras 12-13).

The Supreme Court set aside a 2025 Gujarat High Court judgment that had revived the prosecution of a prison sipahi discharged in 1999 in a 1998 arms and explosives case. The High Court faulted the trial court for ignoring a precedent that did not exist in 1999, and in any event a trial at this distance of time would not serve the interest of justice (paras 2, 6-9).

The Supreme Court quashed a Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act case against a woman's parents-in-law, holding that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, attributed no specific overt act, and had no support beyond her own complaint and her parents' statements (paras 25-26). Applying Bhajan Lal, Arti Mehta and Geddam Jhansi, it said criminal law must not reach every family member without a clear factual foundation (paras 16-17, 26). The case against the husband was untouched (para 27).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings pending since 2003 against Rajasthan Patrika and its Editor-in-Chief over a local news report, holding that neither the complaint nor the evidence attributed any specific role or intention to them, and that a newspaper company is not liable without proof of its management's knowledge. Cognizance without the ingredients of defamation undermines press freedom (paras 35-42, 49-50).

Applying the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, the Supreme Court quashed a rape FIR and chargesheet after what it found was a consensual relationship that "went sour" (paras 4, 13). The complainant did not allege a promise of marriage used to entice her into a sexual relationship; the rape allegation came more than one and a half years later, and the complaint was filed specifically to coerce the appellant into marrying her (paras 8-9).