MONTHLY MAGAZINE OCTOBER

✅Naveen Yadav v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025

• The Court differentiated between deceptive sexual conduct and a genuine relationship that later does not culminate in marriage.

• Justice Arun Monga emphasized that mutual consent allows room for a change of heart without criminal implications.

• The decision reflects a progressive judicial approach toward adult relationships, resisting misuse of rape provisions.

• The Court applied core bail jurisprudence, recognizing liberty rights and trial delays as valid grounds for release.

---

✅Shree Construction Company v. Bagwe Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

• Justice Kamal Khata affirmed the well-settled contract law principle that only parties to a contract can enforce its terms, and third parties cannot sue unless they are privy to the agreement.

• The Court made a clear distinction between contractual rights and general awareness, holding that the latter does not confer enforceable claims.

• The ruling also reinforced the importance of limitation laws, warning that delayed legal actions cannot be justified by vague claims like “continuing obligation.”

• The judgment is significant in real estate and construction law, especially where multiple parties and layered agreements are involved.

• It protects subsequent purchasers and third parties from being drawn into disputes where no direct legal relationship exists.

---

✅Rishita Kapur and another v. Vijay Kapur and anothe, 2025

• The Court drew a strict line between legal enforceability and moral responsibility, reinforcing that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is limited to minor children or disabled major children.

• It clarified that educational dependency alone does not extend maintenance rights under Cr.P.C., although it may under Hindu personal laws in some contexts (e.g., unmarried daughters under HAMA).

• The ruling prevents fathers from weaponizing refunds against children pursuing education post-majority, maintaining a child-centric approach.

• It reflects a compassionate but legally constrained interpretation, distinguishing moral fairness from statutory entitlement.

---

✅X v. Y, 2025

• The Court applied a strict interpretation of Section 4 of the Benami Act, reinforcing the legal fiction of joint ownership where the title so reflects.

• It highlighted the presumption of joint contribution in a marital relationship, even if only one spouse is earning.

• The ruling strikes a balance between statutory rights and equitable considerations, especially in matrimonial property disputes.

• It sets a clear precedent that financial contribution does not override joint title ownership in matrimonial property.

• Regarding divorce, the judgment carefully evaluated post-filing conduct, alleged infidelity, and lack of substantial evidence to define cruelty, ensuring that the high threshold under the law was respected.

---

✅Rachana Devi And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

• The ruling reinforces that every matrimonial dispute or suicide following domestic arguments does not attract Section 306 IPC.

• The judgment draws a clear distinction between moral blame and legal culpability, reminding that criminal charges require intent and proximate cause.

• The Court emphasizes the need for judicial caution before allowing criminal prosecution in sensitive matrimonial cases, especially where suicide follows a quarrel.

• It also reflects judicial recognition of the complexities of domestic life and the need to avoid criminalizing normal conflicts without strong evidence of instigation.

---

✅Murti Devi & Anr. v. Balkar Singh, 2025

• The ruling emphasizes the legal inconsistency in claiming a spousal relationship under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when the same relationship was the basis for a rape conviction.

• The Court rightly pointed out that a rape conviction negates mutual consent, and therefore, disqualifies the petitioner from seeking spousal benefits such as maintenance.

• The minor child’s rights, however, are preserved, reflecting the child-centric focus of the law.

• "As the respondent was admittedly charged with an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner, they cannot be treated as husband and wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC."

• "Living together as husband and wife and having cohabited for years would negate the offence of rape. The presence of a rape conviction implies that this relationship was not consensual, and hence cannot co-exist with a claim for spousal maintenance."

---

✅Executive Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Grow Well Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., 2025

• This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of procedural discipline under Order XXXVII CPC. The court highlighted that summary suits are a special category of civil litigation designed to prevent delay where liability is presumed to be clear.

• The decision protects the integrity of summary procedure by ensuring that defendants cannot bypass the requirement to obtain leave to defend, which would otherwise render the procedural safeguards toothless.

• The judicial clarification on procedural timelines and court discretion for condoning delay serves as an important guidepost for trial courts dealing with commercial summary suits.

• Importantly, the judgment also balances fairness by permitting courts to condone delays when sufficient cause is shown, upholding the principle of natural justice.

---

✅Ramnarayan Ram Daroga And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

• This judgment reinforces judicial discipline in using Section 319 CrPC, which is frequently misapplied by trial courts.

• The Allahabad High Court aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings including:

  • Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 2025

  • Shiv Baran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

• It serves as a reminder that mere naming in testimony does not suffice to summon a person under Section 319. The trial court must assess whether the evidence demonstrates active involvement that justifies a full trial.

• The ruling also highlights the need for judicial scrutiny where FIRs are delayed and possibly motivated.

---

✅X v. State Govt NCT of Delhi and Another & Anr, 2025

• This ruling is a strong judicial affirmation of victim dignity and sensitivity in sexual assault cases.

• It reiterates settled legal principles that past acquaintance or consent to visit cannot be presumed to mean consent to sexual acts.

• The Court rightfully held that judicial officers must exercise restraint and avoid character judgments, particularly at the pre-trial stage such as bail hearings.

• It reflects evolving judicial standards prioritizing victim-centric jurisprudence, consistent with Supreme Court guidelines discouraging stereotypical or moralistic commentary on survivors of sexual offences.

• The ruling also highlights the importance of separating evidentiary analysis from moral judgment, especially in the early stages of criminal proceedings.

---

✅Laxman vs. State of U.P., 2025

• The ruling upholds the finality of criminal judgments, emphasizing the strict bar on recall or review, except for clerical mistakes.

• The Court strictly applied procedural discipline and did not allow sympathy or equitable arguments to override the legal bar under Section 362 CrPC.

• This decision also sends a strong message that deliberate evasion of court proceedings for decades cannot be cured by belated appearances or excuses.

• The judgment also demonstrates judicial restraint in not expanding the scope of inherent powers, consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

---

✅Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused.

• It criticized the prosecution for failing to explore basic leads (e.g., crowd at cremation, alternative theories like suicide).

• The medical testimony of Dr. PW-6 was found inconclusive, especially regarding the absence of a ligature mark on the neck.

• The Court emphasized the principle of “benefit of the doubt” and the presumption of innocence.

• This case serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal jurisprudence, especially when life imprisonment is at stake.

---

✅State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the well-settled principle: criminal courts have no power to review or recall their judicial decisions, except for clerical/accidental corrections under Section 403 BNSS.

• It emphasized the importance of judicial finality, warning against re-litigation and abuse of process under the garb of “inherent powers.”

• Even though the allegations were serious, jurisdictional limits cannot be bypassed for the sake of equity or perceived unfairness.

• The judgment safeguards judicial discipline, reinforcing that CBI transfers must be legally and procedurally justified, not based on emotions or assumptions of bias.

---

✅K. S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the principle that sales by guardians without court approval are voidable, not void ab initio.

• Once a minor becomes a major, they can either:

  • File a suit to cancel the voidable sale, or

  • Repudiate the sale by conduct, such as executing a new sale deed.

• The Court emphasized the importance of possession and revenue records, which remained in the name of the minors, strengthening the Appellant's position.

• The ruling strengthens property rights of minors, offering them flexibility in repudiating unauthorized transactions without forcing them into costly litigation.

---

✅Rajendra Singh & Others v. State of Uttaranchal, 2025

• The only incriminating evidence against them was their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, where they allegedly led polic

• This case reinforces settled law on the limited admissibility of confessional statements under Section 27.

• The judgment protects the rights of the accused from wrongful conviction based on partially inadmissible evidence.

• Mere recovery of weapons, without scientific or corroborative evidence linking them to the crime, is not sufficient for conviction.

• The Court's stance also preserves the sanctity of trial court findings, cautioning appellate courts against casual reversal of acquittals.

---

✅Zainul v. State of Bihar, 2025

• The judgment draws upon the landmark case Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 “Where there are general allegations against a large number of persons, courts must be cautious before convicting all on vague evidence.”

• The Court laid down key tests to determine common object, including:

  • Time and place of assembly

  • Behaviour and conduct of accused

  • Nature of weapons carried

  • Extent of injuries inflicted

  • Motive and unfolding of incident

• The Consistent and reliable witness testimony is necessary to establish individual culpability in such cases.

• The Court criticized omnibus allegations, where no specific overt act or consistent evidence was available against the appellants.

---

✅Laxman Das v. State, 2025

• The Court recognized the psychological condition of the appellant and his lack of intent to kill.

• It accepted that parental frustration, while not excusable, does not automatically indicate intent to commit murder.

• The Court emphasized that mental imbalance, lack of premeditation, and absence of multiple injuries are crucial factors in reclassifying the offence.

• The decision shows judicial sensitivity toward the family dynamics and mental health context of the offender.

---

✅XXX v. XXX, 2025

• The judgment underscores the principle that for a rape conviction based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony, the evidence must be:

  • Sterling

  • Unassailable

  • Inherently credible

• The lack of immediate complaint, non-disclosure to the husband, and no medical evidence weakened the prosecution case.

• The Court rightly relied on Murugesan v. State [(2012) 10 SCC 383], holding that interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the view of the trial court is perverse or impossible which was not the case here.

---

✅Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc., 2025

• The Court clarified the law on stay of execution of decrees, dispelling the misconception that deposit/security is always mandatory.

• Emphasized the discretionary nature of the power, aimed at balancing the interests of the decree-holder and appellant.

• The judgment strengthens access to justice by allowing appellate courts to prevent injustice caused by flawed or extreme judgments, without forcing immediate deposit.

• The criteria for unconditional stay set a high threshold to prevent misuse.

• This decision harmonizes procedural rigor with judicial discretion, encouraging more nuanced adjudication in stay applications.

• The ruling has significant implications for civil appellate practice, especially in commercial and money decree cases.

---

✅DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS VERSUS SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN, 2025

• The judgment highlights the critical role of possession and mutation as indispensable elements in validating an oral gift (hiba) under Mohammedan law.

• The Court insists on public declaration, acceptance, and possession as simultaneous and mandatory prerequisites, strengthening the protection against fraudulent claims.

• By requiring continuous evidence such as rent collection, holding of title, and mutation, the ruling discourages claims based solely on oral testimony and ipse dixit (unsupported assertions).

• The decision reinforces reliance on documentary evidence and revenue records in property disputes, aligning with the principle that possession must be demonstrable and verifiable.

• This ruling safeguards property rights by preventing abuse of oral gifts as hidden or secretive instruments to effect ownership transfer.

• The Court’s insistence on public acts and mutation benefits all parties by ensuring transparency and certainty in property transactions under Muslim law.

---

✅S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors., 2025

• The Court took a holistic view of pedestrian and non-motorised road user safety, previously under-emphasised in urban planning.

• It recognised the interlinkage between infrastructure, enforcement, and public awareness.

• The judgment enforces accountability on multiple agencies: PWD, NHAI, traffic police, municipal bodies, and MoRTH.

• It balances enforcement with accessibility, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and persons with disabilities.

• By calling for data submission, e-monitoring, and structured audits, the Court pushes for institutional reform in road safety governance.

---

✅Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2025 

• The Court reaffirmed the precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019), where it was held that even in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, Magistrates possess implied authority to direct the taking of voice samples.

• The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified that the term “person” used in Ritesh Sinha was intentional and not limited to the accused, thus encompassing witnesses as well.

• The judgment relied on the reasoning from State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), which distinguished testimonial evidence (involving personal knowledge or communication) from physical/material evidence (like fingerprints or handwriting).

• The Court emphasized that mere collection of a sample does not amount to self-incrimination; the comparison of that sample with material discovered during investigation might yield incriminating evidence, but the act of providing it is non-testimonial.

• Importantly, the Court noted that Section 349 of the BNSS (2023) now explicitly provides statutory authority for obtaining such samples, thus removing any ambiguity that previously existed under the Cr.P.C.

• The judgment also reiterated judicial discipline, holding that a High Court cannot disregard a binding Supreme Court precedent merely because a reference is pending before a larger bench.

---

✅Hansraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025

• The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih reaffirmed the retrospective applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, in line with the Constitution Bench decision in Pratap Singh (2005) and Dharambir (2010).

• The Court reiterated that the age of the offender on the date of the offence is the determining factor, not the date of trial or conviction.

• The principle of beneficial legislation was emphasized — juvenile justice laws are reformative, not retributive, and therefore must be interpreted liberally to protect the rights of children in conflict with law.

• The State’s objection that the JJ Act could not apply to offences committed before 2001 was rejected as inconsistent with binding precedents.

• The Court found no conflict between the Indian Children Act, 1960 and the JJ Act, 2000, and held that the latter supersedes earlier laws in protecting juveniles.

• The fundamental right to liberty was given primacy, as the petitioner’s incarceration beyond three years amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

• The Court also highlighted the continuity of protection through legislative evolution — noting that Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 is the modern equivalent of Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, maintaining the right to raise juvenility claims at any stage.

---

✅CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Versus M/S NARAYAN NIRYAT INDIA PVT. LTD & ORS., 2025

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural timelines in criminal investigations and proceedings, specifically regarding challenges to the validity of investigations conducted by the CBI under the DSPE Act.

• It clarified that procedural objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid misuse and undue delays.

• The judgment preserves the integrity of the trial process by preventing higher courts from acting as fact-finding tribunals during quashing petitions.

• It ensures that substantive issues are thoroughly examined during trial rather than prematurely dismissed, safeguarding the accused’s right to fair trial while also ensuring justice is not derailed by procedural technicalities.

---

✅RAJU v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI), 2025

• The judgment emphasizes that documents preferred for age determination must be reliable and unimpeachable.

• The Courts can and should discard evidence if found falsified or inconsistent.

• It highlights the importance of corroborating medical evidence (bone age test) when documentary evidence is doubtful.

• The ruling underscores the need for credible, consistent testimony in sensitive cases like sexual offences.

• Shows judicial caution in cases where the evidence points to possible consensual relationships rather than criminal acts.

---

✅Roshan v State of Maharashtra, 2025

• The judgment clarifies the limits of medical evidence in proving non-consent in sexual assault cases.

• It underscores the importance of consistency and reliability of victim testimony.

• The ruling stresses that benefit of doubt must go to the accused if prosecution evidence is inconclusive or contradictory.

• It highlights the need for corroborative evidence beyond minor physical signs to establish forcible sexual assault.

---

✅X & Ors v. State & Anr, 2025

• The decision highlights judicial caution against the misuse of Section 498A IPC, especially in cases involving vague or exaggerated allegations.

• It underscores the need for specific and verifiable evidence before initiating criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

• The judgment reinforces that abuse of criminal process not only harms the accused but also dilutes genuine cases of dowry harassment.

• The Court’s approach reflects a balanced view, ensuring that justice is not reduced to retaliation in emotionally charged family conflicts.

---

✅State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the offence, leaving no reasonable doubt.

• The absence of motive, inconsistent recoveries, and lack of independent witnesses severely weakened the prosecution’s case.

• The judgment underscores judicial vigilance in death penalty cases, emphasizing that capital punishment must be reserved only for cases proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

• The Court’s criticism of the trial court reflects the importance of judicial prudence and fairness in cases involving life and liberty.

---

✅Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others, 2025

• The judgment reinforces the protective intent of the POCSO Act, which categorically denies the validity of consent from minors in sexual offences.

• The Court’s reliance on school records as primary proof of age reflects judicial adherence to Section 94(2)(i) JJ Act, providing clarity in age-determination disputes.

• By affirming conviction under the SC/ST Act, the Court recognized the intersectionality of caste-based vulnerability and sexual exploitation, emphasizing protection for marginalized children.

• The Bench’s observation — “This is yet another classic case that reflects the unfortunate position in which vulnerable sections of the society, in particular, children belonging to SC & ST, are placed” — underlines the social justice dimension of criminal law enforcement.

• The decision also clarifies that any person aware of the offence may file a report under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, thereby expanding access to justice and encouraging community responsibility in protecting children.

• The Court rejected the defense narrative of consensual relationship or false implication, highlighting that such arguments are irrelevant and insensitive in cases involving minors.

---

✅V v. S.S., 2025

• The ruling is a progressive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC, recognizing education and empowerment as valid grounds for maintenance.

• Justice Gajendra Singh’s remarks “Entering into marital tie up does not mean end of personality of the wife... Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other” mark a strong affirmation of gender equality within marriage.

• The Court viewed the husband’s obligation to support his wife’s education as part of his marital duty, expanding the traditional view of maintenance beyond mere subsistence.

• The judgment also reflects a modern understanding of spousal support, aligning with the constitutional ideals of equality and empowerment.

• By setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court underscored that temporary earnings or academic pursuits cannot bar a woman from claiming maintenance if she lacks stable income.

• The case contributes to evolving jurisprudence on maintenance for educated women, especially those pursuing higher studies, reaffirming that personal development is part of marital dignity.

---

✅Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental procedural principle:

  • The test for Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined to the four corners of the plaint.

  • Courts cannot assess defences, documents, or extraneous material at this stage.

• This decision aligns with earlier precedents such as:

  • Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, and

  • T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467.

• By stressing the “plain reading test,” the Court preserved the plaintiff’s right to trial, ensuring that genuine disputes of law and fact are not prematurely dismissed.

• The judgment also clarifies that questions such as limitation, title, or validity of a Will often involve mixed questions of law and fact, and therefore cannot form the sole basis for rejecting a plaint.

• The Court’s reasoning promotes judicial discipline and guards against summary dismissals of suits at the preliminary stage.

---

✅X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025

• The Court correctly applied the doctrine of prospective overruling stemming from Independent Thought (2017), ensuring no retrospective criminalization of conduct.

• It reaffirmed the principle that criminal statutes must be applied as they existed at the time of the alleged offence, upholding the constitutional guarantee against ex post facto penal laws (Article 20(1)).

• On kidnapping, the Court emphasized that “enticing” or “taking” implies active persuasion or inducement, which was absent as the victim voluntarily eloped and married the appellant.

• The Court also discussed the conflict between personal law and statutory law, noting that under Mohammedan Law, marriage at 15 is permissible, but Child Marriage Act, 2006 later raised the minimum age to 18 for females.

• However, since the marriage took place before the 2006 Act, the Court accepted the personal law position for that period.

• The decision reflects a historically contextual application of law, avoiding retrospective imposition of standards derived from subsequent legislative and judicial developments.

---

✅LEELAVATHI N. AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC., 2025

• The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint where specialized tribunals exist for service matters.

• It reiterates the constitutional principle from L. Chandra Kumar that High Courts should generally not intervene in service disputes if tribunals are empowered and accessible.

• The Court delineated the limited circumstances under which writ jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent misuse and duplication of judicial processes.

• The ruling promotes administrative efficiency by directing candidates to exhaust tribunal remedies first before seeking High Court intervention.

• The distinction from T.K. Rangarajan clarifies that the scale and nature of issues are crucial in deciding writ jurisdiction invocation.

---

✅ZOHARBEE & ANR. Versus IMAM KHAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS., 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of fixed Qur'anic shares in Muslim inheritance law, emphasizing the rigidity and certainty it brings to succession matters.

• The judgment clarified the legal principle under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act that an agreement to sell alone does not transfer ownership, thereby safeguarding heirs’ rights against informal property dealings.

• By emphasizing the requirement of a registered sale deed to effect transfer of immovable property, the Court aimed to prevent circumvention of inheritance rights through unregistered agreements.

• The ruling strengthens the protection of widows’ inheritance rights under Islamic law and ensures fair and legally sound distribution of property after death.

• It also serves as a caution regarding property transactions within families to avoid disputes and protect legal ownership.

---

✅Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot v. Nitesh Gajanan Patil, 2025

• This decision underscores the mandatory nature of Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is designed to prevent conflicting decisions and duplication of proceedings between the same parties.
  
  
• The Court clarified that Section 21-A overrides general procedural provisions like Section 24 CPC when both parties have filed matrimonial petitions. Hence, considerations of convenience or hardship — while relevant under Section 24 CPC — cannot negate the statutory requirement under Section 21-A.
  
  
• By distinguishing the Supreme Court ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the High Court affirmed that different legal contexts warrant different approaches. The earlier Supreme Court case dealt with transfer under Section 24 CPC, whereas the present matter involved a specific legislative mandate under Section 21-A.
  
  
• The Court also balanced equity by suggesting technological and logistical accommodations (video conferencing and travel cost reimbursement) to minimise inconvenience for the wife, thus ensuring that procedural fairness accompanied strict statutory compliance.
  
  
• In effect, the judgment strengthens judicial consistency in matrimonial proceedings and clarifies that statutory mandates prevail over equitable considerations when the law explicitly provides the course of action.

---

✅M/s H.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025

• This judgment reinforces the post-1997 interpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, clarifying that parties cannot contract out of statutory limitation periods or extinguish legal rights prematurely.
  
  
• It reflects the judiciary’s evolving stance toward standard-form insurance contracts, where bargaining inequality often exists between corporations and consumers. The decision balances contractual freedom with the constitutional principle of fairness in commercial dealings.
  
  
• The Court’s reliance on Indusind Bank and Oriental Insurance v. Sanjesh demonstrates a consistent approach toward voiding clauses that curtail access to justice or restrict legal remedies.
  
  
• Moreover, by restoring an award that had been nullified for over 16 years, the judgment highlights the corrective power of appellate review under Section 37, ensuring that technical misapplications of pre-amendment law do not perpetuate injustice.

---

✅Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

• This judgment is a strong judicial critique of evidentiary standards applied by trial courts in POCSO cases. The High Court underscored that while offences against minors must be treated seriously, convictions cannot rest on presumptions or unsubstantiated inferences.
  
  
• The Court’s remarks calling the conviction “shocking” and “based on no evidence” highlight the imperative of adhering to due process, even in socially sensitive prosecutions.
  
  
• Importantly, this is one of the rare cases where the victim herself sought suspension of the accused’s sentence, and the Court balanced humanitarian concerns with the requirement of legal fairness.
  
  
• The ruling also reiterates the importance of Proper exhibition of documents and statements under Section 164 CrPC. The Forensic linkage between the accused and the alleged act. It was ensuring that convictions are evidence-based, not assumption-based.
  
  
• By suspending the conviction, the Court preserved the presumption of innocence pending appeal, emphasizing that justice must remain evidence-driven even in emotionally charged circumstances.

---

✅XXXX v. XXX, 2025

• This decision underscores the protective philosophy embedded in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, particularly Section 117, which continues the presumption principle earlier found in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  
  
• The High Court balanced individual liberty against societal concern over rising incidents of unnatural deaths among newly married women. By refusing anticipatory bail, the Court reaffirmed that such cases demand thorough investigation before any preemptive relief is granted.
  
  
• Justice Moudgil’s judgment emphasizes:
  The moral and legal obligation of courts to treat unnatural deaths of married women with utmost seriousness.
  The burden-shifting mechanism designed to protect women from domestic cruelty.
  That parity with co-accused or absence of prior record cannot outweigh the gravity and public importance of such allegations.
  
  
• The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against trivializing allegations of abetment to suicide in marital settings and reinforces judicial vigilance in gender-sensitive criminal jurisprudence.

---

✅Rahul Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s intolerance toward perjury and hostile testimony in criminal trials.

The Court highlighted two crucial aspects:

1. Judicial Accountability for Truth-Telling:

   • The direction for suo motu prosecution of lying witnesses strengthens the trial courts’ role as guardians of truth.

   • It underscores that witness credibility is essential for justice and that dishonesty in testimony cannot be ignored or condoned.

2. Balance Between Liberty and Justice:

   • By not immediately cancelling bail, the Court upheld the principle of personal liberty, but simultaneously fortified procedural safeguards to prevent witness intimidation.

   • This reflects a nuanced balance between individual rights and the integrity of the criminal process.

The order also sends a broader institutional message to subordinate courts across India — that they must not remain passive when witnesses attempt to derail justice through falsehood, but must exercise statutory powers under Section 195 CrPC and Section 193 IPC to protect the sanctity of the trial.

---

✅Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others, 2025

• This judgment reinforces a long-standing legal position that tribal communities in India are governed by their own customary laws regarding property and inheritance, not by the Hindu Succession Act, unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
  
  
• While the High Court’s intention to promote gender equality and prevent exploitation was socially progressive, the Supreme Court emphasized judicial restraint, reminding that courts cannot legislate where the statute explicitly excludes a class of persons.
  
  
• The Bench’s reliance on Tirith Kumar (2024) and Kamla Neti (2023) highlights a consistent judicial approach and Recognition of the exclusionary scope of Section 2(2); and A legislative appeal to the Parliament to ensure gender-just succession rights among Scheduled Tribes.
  
  
• Thus, while reaffirming statutory interpretation, the judgment leaves open a policy window for the legislature to extend the HSA to Scheduled Tribes through future reform.

---

✅Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Munshi & Ors., 2025

• The judgment reinforces the principle that equity and justice must guide the application of Section 52 TPA.

• The Courts can use discretion to prevent abuse of judicial process and protect genuine property owners.

• The Clarifies that electronic communications or oral arrangements cannot create enforceable rights against documented agreements.

• The Acts as a precedent for balancing protection of property rights with preventing speculative litigation in real estate disputes.

• It highlights the judiciary’s role in insulating parties from frivolous suits while ensuring genuine claims are not obstructed.

---

✅MK v. MA, 2025

• The Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla emphasized that mental cruelty is dynamic and must be assessed based on the evolving behavior and circumstances between spouses.

• The Court distinguished between ordinary marital discord and false accusations that damage a spouse’s social standing.

• The Bench observed that calling the husband an “alcoholic” in his social and professional circle particularly when he was a public servant was a serious act of cruelty affecting his dignity and reputation.

• The Court also noted the lack of evidence supporting the wife’s claims of alcoholism since 2011.

• This decision reiterates the principle that false, defamatory allegations within marriage can constitute mental cruelty, providing a ground for divorce even when there is no physical violence.

---

✅M/S B S Enviro N Infracon Private Limited v. Vij Contracts Pvt. Ltd., 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, emphasizing that once a creditor accepts a lesser amount with full awareness and acknowledgment, the obligation stands discharged.

• The bench underscored that Section 63 provides flexibility to a promisee to accept any satisfaction deemed appropriate, thereby making it unnecessary for the debtor to pay the entire original amount once such acceptance occurs.

• The Court rejected the Appellant’s afterthought argument that the payment was made “on account” and not as full settlement, noting the formal execution of the document by both parties’ directors.

• This judgment highlights the principle that commercial finality and documentary acknowledgment must be respected in contractual relationships — informal oral denials cannot override signed settlements.

---

✅Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr., 2025

• The Court relied on M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (1966), where the Supreme Court clarified that Section 195’s bar operates only when three conditions co-exist:

  1. The offence falls under Section 211 IPC.

  2. A proceeding before a Court exists.

  3. The false charge is made in or in relation to that proceeding.

• Since none of these conditions were fulfilled, the embargo did not apply.

• Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that Section 195 CrPC is a procedural safeguard to prevent misuse of criminal law against actions directly affecting the administration of justice, not to shield wrongdoers from legitimate prosecution.

• The ruling clarifies the scope of Section 211 IPC extending it to false police complaints made maliciously, and not limiting it to court-related proceedings.

• The decision ensures that victims of false accusations have a direct legal remedy, reinforcing accountability for malicious criminal complaints.

---

✅Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgar, 2025

• The decision underscores the judicial restraint that must guide trial courts when exercising discretionary powers under Section 154 Evidence Act.

• The purpose of this provision is not to allow routine cross-examination but to protect the integrity of justice when a witness turns adverse in a substantial and deliberate way.

• The judgment highlights the need for prosecutorial responsibility, cautioning that careless hostility declarations may undermine witness confidence and affect fairness of trials.

• Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing for the bench, emphasized that the judicial satisfaction must precede discretion and insignificant omissions cannot form the basis for hostility.

• This ruling serves as an important procedural safeguard to ensure that witness credibility is not unfairly discredited and that cross-examination is not abused by the prosecution to manipulate testimony.

---

✅Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025

• Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted that “physical relations” is a vague and non-legal expression, lacking the specificity needed to prove sexual intercourse or penetrative assault.

• The judgment underscores that in sexual offence cases, conviction must rest on clear proof of the act constituting the offence, not on imprecise language or assumptions.

• The Court reaffirmed the duty of trial judges to ensure child witnesses are properly examined to elicit relevant facts and to determine their competence to testify.

• At the same time, the Court noted that while judges should not be mute spectators, they must ensure that vulnerable witnesses are not overwhelmed by the process.

• The ruling thus clarifies that ambiguous terminology, even if repeatedly used by witnesses, cannot substitute substantive proof of statutory elements in sexual offence trials.

• Mere use of the expression “physical relations”, without explicit and corroborated evidence of penetration or sexual act, is insufficient to prove rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the IPC or the POCSO Act. Trial courts must ensure clarity and completeness in child witness testimony before drawing legal conclusions.

---

✅Ramji v. State of Punjab and Others, 2025

• Justice Sumeet Goel delivered a strong message against administrative complacency and non-reasoned orders.

• The Court emphasized that premature release policies are meant to balance punishment with reformation, and non-compliance defeats their rehabilitative purpose.

• The judgment underscores two constitutional imperatives:

  1. Fairness in administrative decision-making, and

  2. Timeliness in execution of statutory obligations.

• The ruling builds on the principle that speaking orders are a facet of natural justice, ensuring transparency, accountability, and reviewability of administrative acts.

• The Court’s decision to impose monetary costs reinforces judicial intolerance toward systemic delay and official torpor in prison administration.

---

✅Rajia @ Sabbo v. State, 2025

• The ruling reflects a humane and reformative approach by the Delhi High Court, balancing legal rigor with social justice.

• The Bench reaffirmed that women prisoners with dependent children deserve special consideration under judicial discretion when compassionate or welfare grounds are established.

• The judgment resonates with the constitutional mandate of Article 21, ensuring protection of life, liberty, and dignity, not just for the convict but also for her dependents.

• The Court’s reasoning reflects a progressive understanding of motherhood and child rights within the criminal justice system, ensuring that punishment does not unduly penalize innocent dependents.

• The decision also highlights that sentence suspension pending appeal is not purely punitive but involves evaluative discretion based on circumstantial, evidentiary, and humanitarian factors.

---

✅Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025

• Justice P.V. Balakrishnan reaffirmed the limited scope and conditional admissibility of discovery statements under Section 27.

• The Court reinforced the individualistic nature of discovery evidence it cannot be treated as collective confessional material binding all accused.

• The ruling highlights procedural precision required in criminal investigations: any lapse in documenting the source and content of information can nullify the evidentiary chain.

• The decision also emphasizes that convictions based purely on recovery absent corroborative testimony or forensic evidence fail to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• The judgment strengthens accused persons’ protections against arbitrary use of confessional statements and underscores the investigator’s duty to ensure admissibility through accurate and separate recording.

---

✅Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

• The High Court emphasized that conviction requires concrete evidence establishing a direct link between the accused and the offence.

• Mere assumption or circumstantial evidence without proper forensic corroboration is insufficient, especially under stringent laws like POCSO.

• The judgment highlights the importance of evidentiary rigor and careful judicial scrutiny in sexual assault cases involving minors.

• Victim’s agency in requesting relief also influenced the court’s discretion, showing the interplay of legal and humanitarian considerations in criminal law.

---

✅X v. STATE OF NCT & ANR, 2025

• The High Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked even when a Magistrate’s order is passed despite police cancellation report, because such orders are quasi-final.

• The ruling reinforces judicial oversight on criminal proceedings initiated without sufficient material evidence.

• The decision underscores the balance of rights between accused and complainant, ensuring that unfounded proceedings can be reviewed.