Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: September 2025

SUPREME COURT Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Quash Chargesheet If Cognizance Has Been Taken; Remedy Available Under S.528 BNSS: Supreme Court Cause Title: PRADNYA PRANJAL KULKARNI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875 The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded. “So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”, the Court observed. S. 482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS |Supreme Court Lays Down Four-Step Test For High Courts To Quash Criminal Cases Cause Title: PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880 The Supreme Court laid down the steps to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS). The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: - (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the 13 prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? Supreme Court Disapproves High Courts Directly Entertaining Anticipatory Bail Applications, Issues Notice To Kerala HC Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 884 The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of the practice of High Courts directly entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, bypassing the Sessions Court. The Court has decided to consider the appropriateness of this practice and issued notice to the Kerala High Court, which passed the order under challenge. The Court also appointed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Adv. G. Arudhra Rao, as amicus curiae in the matter. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta acknowledged that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita conferred concurrent jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court to deal with an anticipatory bail application. However, the bench opined that the High Court can directly entertain such matters only in exceptional cases, that too for special reasons to be recorded. S. 223 CrPC/S. 243 BNSS |Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Joint Trial In Criminal Cases Cause Title: MAMMAN KHAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 904 Interpreting Section 223 Cr.P.C (now Section 243 BNSS), the Supreme Court held that a joint trial is permissible where multiple accused are involved in offences arising out of the same transaction and a separate trial would be warranted only if the acts attributed to each accused are distinct and severable. The Court laid down the following propositions regarding the joint trial:- (i) Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C; a joint trial may be permissible where the offences form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Sections 219 – 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion; (ii) The decision to hold a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons; (iii) The two paramount considerations in such decision making are whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused, and whether it would occasion delay or wastage of judicial time; (iv) Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into ...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: September 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags