India: Crime

In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) for alleged false statements made in judicial proceedings. The Court held that a mere finding that a party has made a “wrong statement” is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. There must be material indicating a deliberate falsehood, and the Court must additionally be satisfied that initiating an inquiry is “expedient in the interests of justice.”

Expecting someone to remember pages of oral explanations is unrealistic. By requiring written grounds, the Court has ensured that individuals can consult their lawyers, prepare their defense, and exercise their right to bail meaningfully. It’s a small procedural shift, but one that makes a world of difference to personal liberty.

This issue examines a consistent judicial theme in contemporary criminal law: coercive powers must be exercised strictly within statutory and constitutional limits. The Delhi High Court has clarified that Look Out Circulars cannot be used as instruments of debt recovery. Mere loan default or financial distress, without allegations of fraud or serious economic wrongdoing, cannot justify restricting the fundamental right to travel abroad. Similarly, the Supreme Court has cautioned against continuing criminal proceedings arising from a predominantly commercial dispute after a settlement has been fully implemented and recognised by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

The present appeal arose from acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant to notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act, the land belonging to Respondent No. 1 was acquired and vested in the Central Government. The Competent Authority passed an award determining compensation under Section 3G(1) of the Act.

Can the police arrest an accused merely because a private criminal complaint has been filed before a Magistrate? Is anticipatory bail necessary after receiving summons in a complaint case? These questions have long created uncertainty among litigants and legal practitioners, particularly in jurisdictions where anticipatory bail applications became routine immediately after the institution of complaint proceedings.

The Court further held that a writ petition challenging the very jurisdictional foundation of the attachment is maintainable notwithstanding proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA or the availability of a statutory appellate remedy.

In a significant ruling safeguarding constitutional protections in criminal jurisprudence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy...

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Sujoy Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.1, delivered a significant ruling reiterating that where quashing of criminal proceedings is sought on the ground that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the court is not confined to the bare averments in the complaint/First Information Report (“FIR”). It may examine the attendant circumstances and materials on record (including undisclosed or exculpatory material) to determine whether a prima facie offence is genuinely made out or whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of process.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (sexual harassment) against a company director who used profane language during...