Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a corruption FIR, charge-sheet and proceedings against a former financial adviser of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The Anti-Corruption Bureau searched his house without a warrant and arrested him before registering the FIR, without recording the grounds of arrest. His phone was tapped on orders that stated no public-safety ground, came from an officer not shown to be authorised, and never reached the Review Committee (paras 26-28, 36-40).

The Rajasthan High Court refused to test, under Section 482 CrPC, the correctness of a 2014 cheating and forgery FIR over a housing society's land, because it disclosed a cognizable offence (para 16). Finding the investigation still pending after more than eleven years while the investigating officer cited law-and-order duties, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the DGP to draft a policy creating separate investigation and law-and-order wings, relying on Prakash Singh (paras 21-32).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a District Legal Services Authority order that had rejected a minor rape survivor's claim for interim compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 only because she had not produced a certificate from the SHO or Magistrate (paras 7-8, 21). The authority must obtain the certificate itself (para 21). The Court also directed the RSLSA and all DLSAs to adopt a uniform policy that does not make rape survivors fetch such certificates (para 24).

In the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, the Supreme Court held that Section 436-A CrPC cannot apply where death is a possible punishment, as under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, and that Article 21 cannot be the sole consideration where national security is involved. Yet, with the accused jailed for about twelve years, no misuse of bail and 28 witnesses still to be examined, it declined to cancel their bail and issued directions to speed up reverse-burden trials (paras 11, 16, 21-24).

The Supreme Court held that a person arrested for any offence under any statute, including the IPC (now BNS), must be told the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language they understand (paras 46, 56). Where written grounds are impractical at the moment of arrest, they may first be conveyed orally, but must be supplied in writing "at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate" (para 56). Non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal (para 56).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2017 cognizance order for adultery under Section 497 IPC and the revisional order that upheld it (para 22). It held that the Supreme Court's declaration in Joseph Shine v. Union of India striking down Section 497 operates retrospectively and nullifies all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision, though trials concluded before that judgment cannot be reopened (para 20). Continuing this prosecution, after a negative final report, would be an abuse of process (para 21).

The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash the prosecution of a Jaipur doctor under Sections 304-A and 420 IPC over the death of a newborn in 2007. After a negative police final report, CID(CB) investigated further and a charge-sheet followed. The Court held that this further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was lawful (paras 18-20), and that the Jacob Mathew guidelines were met because expert reports of the Rajasthan Medical Council and SMS Medical College had been considered (paras 22-24).

The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal Rules, 2022 do not take away the Special Court's power to release a seized vehicle on interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (Sections 497 and 503 BNSS). A lorry owner whose crew carried 6 kg of ganja, and who was never charged, got his vehicle back on supurdagi (paras 13-36).

The Supreme Court restored a cheque-bounce conviction set aside by the Bombay High Court in revision, holding that once a cheque's execution is admitted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise, and that a cash loan above Rs. 20,000 in breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains enforceable. It issued directions on dasti and electronic summons, online payment, a case synopsis and dashboards, and revised the compounding costs (paras 15, 20, 36, 38).

The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order revoking the bail of five accused in a 2021 political murder, granted two years earlier (paras 2, 4, 32). Distinguishing cancellation of bail from revocation of a perverse bail order (para 17), it held that individual liberty and the interests of the victim and the community "could have been better balanced" through stringent conditions (para 21), which it imposed (para 26).

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order sending an NDPS ganja case back for retrial because the raid video was not explained by each witness, the chemical examiner was not examined and the seized ganja was not produced. Retrial is for exceptional cases; the video had a Section 65B certificate, the analyst's report is admissible under Section 293 CrPC, and non-production is not always fatal (paras 16-34).

Applying a four-step test drawn from Rajiv Thapar, the Supreme Court quashed a summoning order for rape issued on a private complaint lodged four years after the alleged events (paras 13, 20, 24). The complaint gave no date or place of the incident, also arrayed the accused's parents, and was unsupported by independent evidence; continuing it would be "gross abuse of the process of law" (paras 14-15, 22). Courts must look closely at complaints alleged to be vexatious (para 17).