#criminal proceedings

Section 32A IBC grants statutory immunity to a successor corporate debtor after an approved resolution plan, as held by the Orissa HC. This bars prosecution, requires trial court to vacate cognizance, and shields acquirers from legacy liability.

The Delhi High Court lifted a stay on a Section 138 complaint, ruling that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s moratorium does not extinguish criminal liability for cheque bounce. This ensures borrowers cannot evade prosecution by invoking insolvency protection, affecting all parties in pending IBC cases.

Allahabad HC rules that mere pendency of criminal proceedings, even at the investigation stage, cannot justify passport rejection. The Regional Passport Office must grant applicants an 8-week window to obtain court permission, failing which the passport must be issued expeditiously. This directive reinforces procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights.

Rajasthan High Court rules that a nominee director cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complaint specifically alleges their active involvement or responsibility in the company’s affairs. The ruling underscores that mere nomination by a lending institution does not attract criminal liability without explicit averments.

The Kerala High Court ruled that an accused person with express court permission to travel abroad cannot be denied a customized Police Clearance Certificate solely due to a pending criminal case. This affirms that personal liberty and international mobility rights prevail when judicial oversight explicitly permits it, setting a critical precedent for passport applicants under legal scrutiny.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mere registration or pendency of an FIR is insufficient to deny a character certificate, affirming that the presumption of innocence must guide administrative decisions. This sets a critical precedent for government bodies issuing certificates in employment, immigration, or licensing contexts, ensuring procedural fairness over speculative stigma.

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against three accused, emphasizing that hearsay evidence without direct allegations or involvement in the complaint cannot sustain charges. The ruling reinforces that charge sheets must be grounded in substantive evidence, not mere witness statements relaying second-hand information.

Allahabad HC rules that pre-trial quashing under Section 528 BNSS is impermissible where material facts are disputed, particularly in POCSO and IPC cases. The court emphasized that credibility of allegations must be tested at trial, not dismissed summarily, reinforcing natural justice principles in criminal proceedings.

Allahabad HC reinforces that caste-based insult under the SC/ST Act requires clear intent to humiliate in a public setting. The court quashed charges where the FIR failed to establish this twin test, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Gunjan @ Girija Kumari. This ruling sets a high bar for prosecuting caste-based abuse cases, impacting complainants and accused alike.

Jharkhand High Court reinforces that mere existence of prima facie evidence-including signatures on official records and conflicting expert reports-justifies proceeding with trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ruling clarifies that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is unwarranted at the cognizance stage unless allegations are patently frivolous, impacting prosecutorial discretion in corruption cases.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a 12-year delay in filing a 498A FIR, even after divorce, does not automatically invalidate the case if the allegations disclose ongoing mental or physical cruelty. This affirms that domestic abuse under Section 498A is a continuing offence, protecting survivors who delay reporting due to fear, social stigma, or economic dependence.

Allahabad HC rules that once charges are framed and trial commences, Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash charge sheets, even if summoning orders lack reasoning. The decision reinforces the Bhajan Lal precedent, limiting inherent jurisdiction to pre-trial stages and impacting criminal litigation strategy for accused seeking discharge.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences cannot be quashed solely based on the victim's withdrawal of complaint. The court emphasized that disputed facts must be adjudicated at trial, reinforcing the principle that unilateral withdrawal does not terminate legal proceedings in serious offences.

Allahabad HC reaffirms that quashing under Section 528 BNSS is unwarranted where factual disputes persist. The court directed expeditious bail consideration within 45 days and mandated reasoned discharge orders if applied for within the same period, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.

Bombay High Court rules that a 16-year delay in filing a revision petition under the MRTU and PULP Act is fatal, even in the absence of statutory limitation. The court also clarifies that criminal liability cannot be imposed on former directors without specific pleadings of personal involvement, reinforcing the principle that delay and laches bar equitable relief.