Supreme Court Annual Round Up 2025: CrPC / BNSS

1. S. 482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS | Supreme Court Lays Down Four-Step Test For High Courts To Quash Criminal CasesIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has established a four-step test for High Courts to follow when considering petitions to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS]. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, outlined that the High Court should assess: (i) whether the exonerating material presented by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality; (ii) if this material conclusively rules out the accusations in the complaint; (iii) whether the prosecution has failed to or cannot justifiably refute this material; and (iv) if continuing the trial would be an abuse of the court's process. The Court held that if all four steps are satisfied, the High Court should exercise its power to quash the proceedings to serve the ends of justice and save judicial time. This test was formulated while allowing an appeal and quashing criminal summons in a case where the complainant had alleged rape on a false promise of marriage, noting a four-year delay in filing and a lack of credible allegations.Cause Title: PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8802. S.200 CrPC/S.227 BNSS | Supreme Court Asks Magistrates To Ascertain Truth Of Complaints Before Summoning AccusedThe Supreme Court has emphasized that Magistrates must actively ascertain the truth of allegations before issuing summons in criminal complaints. In a judgment quashing a cheque dishonour case, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that a complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC (Section 227 BNSS) is not a mere formality. The Magistrate has a duty to question the complainant and apply their mind to the evidence to determine if sufficient grounds exist to proceed against an accused. The Court stressed that suppressing material facts and documents while filing a complaint is an abuse of the judicial process, and criminal law cannot be set in motion on such a misleading foundation.Cause Title: REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3553. S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has directed courts to adopt a liberal approach when deciding bail applications under Section 437(6) of the CrPC (Section 480(6) BNSS), which applies when a Magistrate's trial has not concluded within 60 days from the first date set for prosecution evidence. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, held that this right to speedy trial should be liberally enforced in the absence of factors like the accused causing delay, tampering with evidence, or risk of absconding. The Court outlined relevant considerations, including whether the delay is attributable to the accused, the nature of evidence, the likely trial duration, and the period of custody already undergone. Applying this principle, the Court granted bail to an accused in a cryptocurrency fraud case who had been in custody for over a year, while also imposing a condition to deposit a specified amount.Cause Title: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh., Citation :2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2234. Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has clarified that once charges are formally framed against an accused in a trial, they cannot be deleted by invoking Section 216 of the CrPC (Section 239 BNSS). The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that the power under this provision is limited to adding or altering charges, not for deleting them mid-trial. The Court emphasized that a charge, once framed, must lead to a final outcome of either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial, and no shortcuts are permissible. The ruling came in appeals where trial courts had incorrectly deleted charges under the NDPS Act after framing them. The Supreme Court set aside these orders and directed that the trials against the accused proceed under the initially framed charges.Cause Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4345. High Courts Must Check S. 313 CrPC/S.351 BNSS Compliance At Earliest To Avoid Acquittals: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has issued a significant directive to High Courts, urging them to proactively check compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) at the very outset of hearing criminal appeals. This section mandates that all incriminating evidence against an accused must be presented to them during trial to provide an opportunity for explanation. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed that many appeals...

Supreme Court Annual Round Up 2025: CrPC / BNSS

Yash Mittal

Tags