Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-III]

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Matrimonial Disputes - Malafide Complaints - Quashing of FIR - High Court's Duty under Section 482 CrPC - Vague Allegations - The Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Sections 498A and 411 IPC against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, while allowing continuation against the husband. Allegations raised after 14 years of marriage, filed three days after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, required scrutiny for malafide intent. Under Section 482 CrPC, High Courts must assess complaints in matrimonial disputes for ulterior motives, particularly when allegations lack specificity. Vague claims of "taunts" by in-laws over trivial matters, being part of ordinary domestic life, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. Courts must exercise caution to prevent vexatious prosecution of family members in such disputes. (Paras 11 - 13) Kamal v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : 2025 INSC 504Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Foreign Investor - The rule of law has a responsibility to protect the investments of foreign investors, while at the same time ensuring that any person accused of mishandling such funds is really and fully protected by the power of the phrase 'innocent till proven guilty. (Para 13) Hyeoksoo Son v. Moon June Seok, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420 : 2025 INSC 474Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Allegations of financial fraud involving misappropriation of funds by accused, including CFO of the company, through misrepresentation of GST liabilities – High Court quashed proceedings against respondent citing lack of evidence. Held, quantum of money involved irrelevant for quashing of criminal proceedings. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, without assessing veracity of allegations or conducting mini-trial – Corroborated statements of respondent and co-accused admitting receipt of the money, along with respondent's role in company finances, established prima facie case – High Court's order set aside, proceedings revived. (Para 13) Hyeoksoo Son v. Moon June Seok, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420 : 2025 INSC 474Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Power to transfer an investigation to the CBI – Held, the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary measure to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional circumstances, where there is compelling necessity to ensure fairness, preserve public confidence and protect fundamental rights - Such jurisdiction is invoked when State machinery appears ineffective, biased or complicit or where investigation is tainted by delay, irregularity, suppression of facts, or when complexity/inter-state ramifications necessitate a central agency - Set aside order of High Court and directed to transfer investigation to CBI. [Para 17, 19, 20, 24, 25] Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2025 INSC 893Section 482 and 156 Cr.P.C. - CBI Investigation - High Courts should not order CBI investigation in a routine manner or on basis of vague allegations. Mere bald allegations against the incompetence of the local police to investigate the case without any kind of substantiation would not justify the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court set aside the High Court's decision which had transferred the investigation from local police to CBI based on bald allegations of the complainant that the local police was incompetent to investigate the case. The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion. (Para 8 & 9) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2025 INSC 433 : (2025) 5 SCC 149Section 482 and 156 Cr.P.C. - CBI Investigation - In the present, an FIR was registered against the appellant for impersonating an IB officer and extorting ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, respondent no. 3. The complainant sought a transfer of investigation to the CBI, alleging collusion between the appellant and the police. The High Court allowed this transfer. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court noted the High Court's decision to transfer investigation to CBI was based on vague allegations (appellant's acquaintance with police) without substantiated evidence. The Court found that the investigation into the case was underway by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and there was no evidence suggested by the complainant that the local police were incapable or biased. After going through the records of the case, held, that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed. (Para 2 - 9) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 :...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-III]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags