Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: March 2026
SUPREME COURT S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations: Supreme Court Case Title: ASHISH DAVE Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025 The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: ASHISH DAVE Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025
The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs based on vague, speculative or doubtful allegations, even where such allegations are framed as cognizable offences.
Highlighting the legislative shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regime, the Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS introduces an additional procedural filter before registration of FIRs in certain categories of offences.
Cause Title: MD. MASHOOD & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UP & ORS.
The Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to dispose of the quashing petition without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the guidelines regarding an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its merit.
“…once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court held.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court recently slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026.
The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'.
For context, in the Satendra Antil case, the Supreme Court recently held that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.
Case title - Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
In a significant order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court noted that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to 'browbeat' Magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly 'uncomfortable' cases are passed by them.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi firmly advised Magistrates that if any such embarrassment or pressure is faced from any police officer, it is always open to them to make a contempt reference to the High Court.
The Court noted that in those cases, where the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence under Section 173 (4) BNSS, it is open to the informant to send substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned.
Case title - Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled the bail of a POCSO Accused who allegedly started harassing and threatening the minor victim after his release on bail, due to which she died by suicide.
Noting that prima facie the allegations under Section 108 BNS have been substantiated during the investigation, a bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh cancelled the bail of the accused, categorically observing that the accused deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail.
The bench has directed him to surrender within two weeks.
Briefly put, the informant (father of the deceased girl), approached the High Court under Section 483(3) BNS seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused on June 5, 2025.
Case title - Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, even though police-recorded confessional statements can't be part of the charge-sheets, it does not prevent the police from relying on such statements to proceed in an ongoing investigation.
Justice Shukla clarified that these observations do not mean that the police are barred from taking note of confessional statements recorded during the investigation phase.
"Confessional statement though inadmissible in evidence, recoveries or discovery of a new fact under Section 23 of the B.S.A., on the basis of such confessional statement and the part of the confessional statement, which leads to the discovery of a new fact is admissible in evidence", the bench noted.
Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.
The bench also granted immediate relief to the couple (an 18-year-old woman and a married man) and directed that, until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the criminal case registered under Section 87 of the BNS at Police Station Jaitipur in Shahjahanpur district.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her parents-in-law under the statutory provision of Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS.
Observing that the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of the said provision
The Court also stressed that a moral obligation, however compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate.
Case title - Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after an accused is summoned in a complaint case involving a non-bailable offence.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla expressed disagreement with a 2025 coordinate bench ruling in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is not maintainable upon the mere issuance of a summons as there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without a warrant.
Case Title: Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that when the accused is in judicial custody, he/she must be provided a legal counsel by the Trial Court for filing discharge application and if the accused refuses such counsel, then a hearing must be afforded on question of framing of issues with assistance of a legal counsel.
Referring to Sections 262 and 263 of BNSS, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held
“it becomes crystal clear that, on the one hand, the statute gives an opportunity to the accused to move an application for discharge within 60 days of supply of copies of documents and the court has also been prescribed a time limit of 60 days for framing of charge, which commences from the date of the first hearing on charge.”
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an affidavit assuring that even if he is allowed to return to United Kingdom, he will continue co-operating with the ongoing investigations against him for his allegedly defamatory social media post against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe allowed Patil to file an affidavit to this effect and ordered the Mumbai Police to consider the request as expeditiously as possible.
This comes after Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, representing Patil, pointed out before the court that his client has already been co-operating with the probe and was last summoned by the Mumbai Police on January 21. He submitted that the FIR lodged against Patil under section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) does not warrant any custodial interrogation and thus his client can be permitted to travel back to UK to resume his services there.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court held that a person cannot be taken into custody merely for alleged breach of an interim bond for good behaviour executed during preventive proceedings, clarifying that detention under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is permissible only when there is a breach of a final bond ordered after completion of the statutory inquiry. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee made this observation while setting aside an order of an Executive Magistrate that had cancelled the petitioner's interim bond and directed his detention during the pendency of preventive proceedings.
Examining the statutory scheme, the High Court clarified that an interim bond under Section 135(3) BNSS is only a temporary measure imposed during the pendency of the inquiry and does not amount to a final order directing security for good behaviour. The Court observed that the power to detain a person under Section 141 arises only when a final order directing security has been passed under Section 136 BNSS and the Magistrate is satisfied that the bond has been violated. In the present case, no such final order had been passed and the inquiry itself had not been concluded.
Case: Kaushik Panja & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
The Calcutta High Court has held that under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate cannot direct the police to conduct an “inquiry” and must himself undertake such inquiry before ordering investigation.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee clarified that the statutory scheme mandates application of judicial mind, and the expression “inquiry” as defined under the BNSS refers to an exercise to be carried out by a Magistrate or Court, not by the police. Delegating this function to the police—particularly when they have already refused to register an FIR—would be contrary to legislative intent and amount to an abuse of process.
Case: Ajay Kumar Vs. The State of West Bengal and another
The Calcutta High Court, sitting at the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings arising out of allegations of bigamy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), after noting that the dispute between the parties had been fully settled and that one of the offences invoked could not have been prosecuted through a police case at all. Justice Jay Sengupta passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Kumar, against whom a case had been registered under Sections 82(2) and 85 of the BNS.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case title: UDAY BHADORIYA v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (March 12) issued notice on a petition challenging orders imposing ban on public meetings inside Delhi University.
For context, on February 17, the proctor of the University had issued orders prohibiting for one month, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and protests of any kind on the University campus.
During the hearing today a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia were informed that a Section 144 CrPC order was also issued by police sub-division Civil Lines, which had been extended to April.
Before concluding the court also orally said that there are certain "pre-conditions" which are required to be met before passing an order under Section 163 BNSS which is equivalent to Section 144CrPC adding that language of Section 163BNSS and Section 144CrPC are similar and "pari-materia".
Case title: Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue relating to the stage of taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the timing of issuance of notice to the accused under its first proviso.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has framed the following questions for consideration by the larger bench:
(i) What is the stage at which a Magistrate can be said to have taken “cognizance” of an offence, in the context of a private complaint, under the provisions of BNSS, and whether the expression “while taking cognizance” as employed in Section 223(1) of the BNSS implies that the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath is a step prior to taking of cognizance of offence?
(ii) At what stage is the Magistrate required to issue notice to the accused in compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS – whether (a) upon perusal of the complaint but prior to recording of the statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, or (b) after recording such statements but before a formal decision on taking cognizance?
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Abdul Kalam v. The Union of India
The Gauhati High Court refused to grant bail to an NDPS accused who had claimed violation of arrest procedure under BNSS, after finding that his family who lived in Manipur were informed of the arrest via telephonic intimation and there was subsequent service of written notice under section 48 of BNSS.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, noted that at the time of the accused's arrest in Guwahati, his wife was intimated about his arrest over the telephone call as she is a resident of a village in Manipur. The court further noted that a document to that effect was prepared which "mentioned that Grounds of Arrest of the Accused Applicant were explained by him to his wife and the contents were admitted by the Accused Applicant by putting his signature on that".
The court further noted that the receipt of the Written Notice containing details of Grounds of Arrest under Section 48 BNSS on a later date, though not at the time of his arrest, was also admitted by the counsel for the petitioner.
Bail Can Be Cancelled If Procured By Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr.
The Gauhati High Court has held that bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled where it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “...a bail order can also be cancelled, if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. The aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in the instant case as narrated and discussed above. Clearly, the respondent No.2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled in exercise of both the inherent powers of this Court as well as the powers of bail cancellation available to this Court concurrently with that of the Sessions Court,” the Court added.
Thus, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 306 BNSS was cancelled and set aside, and the criminal petition was allowed.
Case Name: Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that mere non-payment arising out of contractual dealings, without prima facie material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, cannot be treated as offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, who observed,
“the dishonest intention and mens rea, prima facie, cannot be made out against the accused-applicant from the materials brought before this Court. To sustain a charge under Section 318 and Section 316 of BNS, 2023, there must be substantive evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the contract or transaction. Mere allegation of such intention will not hold legal force. Mere failure to discharge contractual obligation, i.e., failure in payment in time, by itself, will not constitute cheating. Court has to find reliable material to that effect. Similarly, a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 316 of BNS without there being a clear case of entrustment in true sense,” the Court further opined.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court has held that although Section 250(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) prescribes a period of sixty days to file a discharge application after committal, the expiry of that period does not extinguish the accused's right to seek discharge where sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Section 250(1) of the BNSS allows an accused to file an application seeking discharge within 60 days from the date on which the case is committed to the Court of Session.
Justice P. M. Raval observed that limitation provisions regulate the procedure but do not eliminate the substantive defence available to an accused.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Gurjit Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zone
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be interpreted harmoniously with its provisos and does not mandate automatic release of an accused on bail upon completion of the statutory period of detention.
The Court observed that the statutory provision creates eligibility for consideration of bail once the threshold period is crossed, but the discretion of the Court to continue detention remains intact under the second proviso to Section 479 BNSS.
The Court clarified that the provision only makes an accused eligible to seek bail, while the Court retains discretion to continue detention for reasons to be recorded.
Case Title: Ajaz Ahmed v. UT of J&K through SHO Police Station Poonch & Superintendent, District Jail, Poonch.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a person who has been tendered pardon under Section 343 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 306 of the CrPC and examined as an approver, cannot be detained in custody in an absolute manner until the termination of trial. The Court clarified that the statutory purpose of custodial detention of an approver is to safeguard him and secure truthful testimony, not to punish him.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case title: X v/s State & Anr
Observing that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR U/s 69 and 115(2) of BNS arising from a live-in relationship in Ireland.
“….If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice…”, the court opined while absolving the petitioner male from the continuing criminal prosecution.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that if the sexual intercourse did not stem from 'deceit from inception', it would be unjust to 'criminalise heartbreak'.
Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka
Last week, the Karnataka High Court raised eyebrows over an alleged discrepancy in the manner in which biological samples were taken from an accused in the 'Ellavoma' Farm Raid back in May 2025.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a quashing petition filed by one of the accused, a woman from Bengaluru, in the case pending before Special Court for NDPS Cases.
The charges levelled against the accused-petitioner include Sections 20(b), 22(a), and 27(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 292, 296, 3(5), and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
“Without arrest, how did you conduct a medical examination. If you have arrested, what are the grounds of arrest? And if you have not arrested, how did you take blood samples? At least an arrest memo should be there. If they have taken her to custody and released her, there should be some procedure…”, the court orally observed referring to Section 51 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order noted that initially the complainant had approached the jurisdictional police for registration of the crime but the police did not register the case stating that the matter was purely civil in nature and rendered a non-cognizable report (NCR). Pursuant to this the complainant approached the Magistrate court in a private complaint under Section 223 BNSS.
The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ashique v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an accused, who is already under judicial custody, is arrested in relation to another case following a production warrant under Section 302 BNSS, there is no need to separately inform him of the grounds of arrest.
The reasoning of the Court was that as per Form 37, relating to the order requiring production of a person in prison as per Section 302, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy and this amounts to sufficient communication.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, however, clarified that in such cases, it is mandatory to inform the relative of the accused.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently passed an order whereby it directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to furnish the duty register of customs officers on duty at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to facilitate investigation into a crime relating to smuggling of methamphetamine from Muscat to India.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that in heinous offences under the NDPS Act, cooperation of State and its instrumentalities was necessary
The Court looked into the scope of Section 94 BNSS (Summons to produce document or other thing) and Section 67 NDPS Act (Power to call for information) by referring to the provisions and certain decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court.
It was opined:
“On a careful analysis of the scope and scheme of Section 94 BNSS, read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and its interpretations in the above decisions, it is trite that only a document or a thing, which is in the possession of a person from whom it is sought to be summoned, can be directed to be produced. The person cannot be expected to create a document or thing to be furnished to the Investigating Agency.”
Case Title: Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a person can be prosecuted for illegal removal or transportation of river sand as per the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in addition to the offence of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that his earlier decision in Mohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala was rendered without noticing the relevant provisions under the Sand Act and the General Clauses Act as well as the precedents rendered by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the High Court.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Challenge To BNSS Provision On Pre-Cognizance Hearing
Case Title: Nakkheeran Gopal v. Union of India and Others
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the first proviso of Section 223 of the BNSS. As per the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, A magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
The plea, filed by Nakkheeran Gopal, an investigative journalist and owner of Nakkheeran Publications, states that the proviso is redundant, prolongs the trial, is repugnant to timely justice and ultra vires to the Constitution. The plea thus seeks to lay down correct trial procedure for the criminal defamation complaint, settling conflicts in Sections 210, 223, 225, and 227 of BNSS.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has admitted the plea and issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Arman Khan & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Case No: CRLMC No. 2549 of 2017
The Orissa High Court has held that while the police has power to issue notice to the accused to appear when required for investigation under Section 41A(1) CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS , it however said that requiring the accused persons to appear every 15 days is not proper.
In order to examine the true purport and ambit of Section 41-A CrPC/ Section 35 BNSS, the Court placed reliance upon the landmark rulings of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 751 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114.
Case Title: Lacha Madi v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has recently clarified that the mandate of providing written grounds of arrest to the accused, which was made mandatory by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066, applies prospectively and thus, non-compliance thereof before the date of judgment does not render the arrest illegal per se.
The Court rejected the argument suggesting non-compliance of the statutory directive, and observed–
“The aforesaid arrest memo was not only signed by the arresting officer, but also by the arrestee and, therefore, the communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner is in the line of Sec. 47 of BNSS.”
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Title: Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and another
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making false allegations against a judicial officer, holding that the prosecution was initiated in violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Sumeet Goel held that a Kalandra filed by a Station House Officer was not maintainable where the original complaint had been made to a superior police authority. While setting aside the proceedings, the Court also directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to conduct a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 13500 of 2025
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that that continuation of proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 13 would amount to abuse of process of law, considering the victim's suicide note, that did not attribute any fault to them. The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3, who found direct mention in the suicide note.
The Court held that issues relating to the truth of the allegations and the proximity between the alleged act of abetment and the act of committing suicide are matters to be decided at trial. Hence, it was noted that the investigation was still in progress and that the prima facie case could not be discarded at the nascent stage.
Importantly, the Court engaged with the contention that mere registration of a crime could not amount to abetment of suicide. Hence, in reference to the accused No. 11, who was instrumental in lodging the complaint at the instigation of the first three accused, the Court held that “lodging of complaint filed by accused No. 11 would amount to initiating a legal proceeding, which cannot be said to be an act abetting the suicide of the victim”.
Case Title: Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
The Telangana High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the police registered a case under the BNS 2023, even though the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the new criminal law framework.
The BNS came into force from July 1, 2024 replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court clarified that such an error does not vitiate the proceedings, as the trial court can examine the allegations and frame appropriate charges under the correct law.
Case Title: Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of circulating “fake news” on social media, holding that mere forwarding of content, without the requisite intent, does not attract offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners had circulated or forwarded such content, the essential ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS are not attracted… The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 BNS. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law.”