#Criminal procedure

The court held that a guarantor's security cheque is not automatically exempt from Section 138 prosecution merely because it was given as collateral; the existence of an enforceable debt must be tested at trial. This clarifies that guarantors cannot escape cheque bounce proceedings at the threshold without a full evidentiary inquiry into the underlying liability.

The Madras HC upheld writ courts' review jurisdiction under Article 226 via HC Writ Rules, ruling that a proposed accused has no pre-FIR hearing right. It also held the State may withdraw a legally untenable review without breaching rule of law, bolstering prosecutorial discretion in PMLA and corruption matters.

The Bombay High Court consolidated 10 FIRs across six districts against a cooperative society director under the MPID Act, IPC and PCMC Act, directing a single trial at Nashik. The first FIR serves as the main case while subsequent FIRs are treated as Section 161 statements, curbing multiplicity of proceedings in economic offence cases.

Gujarat HC quashed the bail cancellation order of the POCSO Judge, Deesa, holding that Section 528 BNSS requires a hearing before liberty can be curtailed, safeguarding accused in POCSO cases and preventing bail withdrawal without a fair hearing.

The Delhi High Court directed masking of identity markers in quashed criminal orders to shield the petitioner’s family from harassment, upholding a right to be forgotten under Article 21. This lets those with quashed criminal cases seek removal of personal details from public court records to prevent ongoing stigma.

The Delhi High Court held that magistrates must independently apply their judicial mind before issuing summoning orders at the cognizance stage, upholding the summons against a director accused of diverting business proceeds under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards against mechanical issuance of process and affects magistrates, accused, and complainants in criminal proceedings.

Delhi HC quashed an FIR under Section 174A IPC after finding that summons were sent to the wrong address, meaning the accused was wrongly declared an absconder. The ruling stresses that under Section 82 CrPC, a court must objectively verify residence before labelling someone an absconder and issuing a proclamation.

HP HC held that complaint under Sec 141 NI Act must show averments linking a director to dishonoured cheque; mere resignation does not quash proceedings. This sets the evidentiary standard for director liability and shields officers from baseless claims.

Uttarakhand High Court held that trials under Section 143(3) of the NI Act must conclude within six months. It directed the lower court to expedite proceedings, reinforcing statutory mandate for expeditious trial impacting NI Act cases with alleged delay.

The Calcutta HC affirmed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for a major son with 70% disability, ruling that the father's obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC does not cease on attaining majority. The decision reinforces the statutory right of disabled adult children to support, impacting families across West Bengal.

Gauhati HC held that on a cyber complaint of a suspicious transaction, a bank may only lien that sum and let the account holder use the rest. It protects traders’ livelihood under Article 21 by barring arbitrary full-account freezes.

The Punjab & Haryana HC held that an accused cannot compel production of a status report submitted to the Supreme Court in another proceeding when it is not part of the case record, affirming that the right to seek documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. arises at the defence stage, not during prosecution evidence. This ruling clarifies disclosure limits and impacts defence strategy in criminal trials.

The Gauhati HC held that rejecting a Section 311 CrPC witness-summoning petition may be an intermediate order if it affects the final judgment, allowing a Section 397 CrPC revision to challenge such denial of vital witness evidence.

The court held that mobile phone accessories are functional commercial hardware, not 'artistic works' eligible for copyright protection, quashing an FIR filed under the Copyright Act. It further ruled that police searches for trademark violations require prior Registrar opinion and a DSP-rank officer under the Trade Marks Act, rendering the search and seizure procedurally invalid. The decision clarifies the copyright-trademark boundary and enforces statutory safeguards against misuse of criminal IP enforcement.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer, holding that Section 58 of the NDPS Act imposes liability only when the officer personally engages in the vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest. This limits police accountability to those directly involved, not merely supervising officials.