#Case Law Analysis | Criminal Issues

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that Lok Adalats cannot entertain or decide applications for withdrawal of criminal prosecution under Section 321 CrPC, as such decisions require judicial scrutiny by a competent court. This clarifies a critical boundary between alternative dispute resolution forums and the core prosecutorial powers reserved for regular criminal courts, protecting complainants' rights in serious offences.

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses an appeal seeking additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, ruling that the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in presenting mobile recordings during trial. The court held that belated claims of a 'love story' with the prosecutrix do not justify admitting evidence at the appellate stage, reinforcing that Section 391 is not a tool for remedying procedural lapses.

The Supreme Court clarifies that the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC begins from the date of the FIR or complaint filing, not when the magistrate takes cognizance. This ruling overturns the High Court’s quashing of the FIR, reinforcing that delayed charge-sheets beyond the prescribed period will attract the bar of limitation, impacting criminal proceedings nationwide.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that deferral of cross-examination under Section 231(2) CrPC cannot be granted as a matter of routine and must be supported by specific reasons and a timely application. The court emphasized that premature disclosure of defence strategy could prejudice the accused, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards in criminal trials.

Bombay High Court rules that setting aside a Magistrate's investigation order under Section 156(3) CrPC does not terminate the complaint proceedings. The Magistrate must reconsider the complaint afresh under Chapter XV CrPC, ensuring the complainant's right to a merits-based adjudication is preserved.