#criminal prosecution

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a cheating and forgery FIR in a family inheritance fight, ruling that criminal prosecution is an abuse of process where the dispute is purely civil. This bars the use of Section 482 CrPC to settle succession matters, protecting heirs from unwarranted criminal litigation.

The Karnataka High Court held that under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, a corporate director cannot be prosecuted for fertilizer violations unless the company itself is named as an accused party. This clarifies the threshold for vicarious liability under the Fertilizer Control Order, shielding officers from automatic criminal exposure when the corporate entity remains uncharged.

Madras High Court rules that prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act requires proof of wilful intent to evade tax, not mere non-payment. The court held that financial distress or inadvertent default does not attract penal provisions, reinforcing that mens rea is a prerequisite for criminal liability in tax evasion cases.

Madras High Court quashes prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, ruling that only the jurisdictional Assessing Officer can file complaints, and penalty proceedings are a mandatory precondition. The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards against arbitrary tax prosecutions, impacting taxpayers and revenue authorities alike.

The J&K High Court ruled that criminal proceedings against company directors and officers under the Drug and Cosmetics Act require specific allegations of their role in the offence. Prosecution is permissible only if they are formally nominated under Section 34 or directly implicated in the violation, reinforcing the need for individualized culpability in corporate liability cases.

Bombay High Court rules that a clerical error in area description in a registration document does not constitute an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act if there is no intent to evade stamp duty. The ruling underscores that criminal liability requires proof of mens rea, protecting parties from prosecution for inadvertent mistakes.

Directors remain criminally liable under the SEBI Act for non-refund of investor funds even after the company's dissolution, as the offence is continuing in nature and not barred by limitation under CrPC Section 468. This ruling expands accountability beyond corporate shells, reinforcing investor protection in unregistered collective investment schemes.

Madras High Court quashed POCSO charges where the victim, now an adult, married the accused and submitted a joint compromise memo affirming voluntary consent and peaceful cohabitation. The ruling underscores judicial discretion to terminate proceedings in non-heinous offences where reconciliation restores victim autonomy and no public interest is served by continuation.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that omission of an accused’s name in the FIR-despite the complainant’s knowledge of their identity-creates reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal even in SC/ST Act cases. The judgment reinforces that evidence consistency is critical for conviction, particularly where initial reports fail to attribute roles.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a retired Additional Public Prosecutor may continue in office temporarily until a replacement is appointed, prioritizing uninterrupted criminal prosecution over rigid retirement age rules. This decision underscores the court's balancing of service rules with public interest, setting a precedent for similar vacancies in critical legal roles.

The Bombay High Court has held that the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act lacks the statutory power to direct criminal prosecution, reinforcing that its role is confined to ordering information disclosure and imposing penalties under Section 20. This ruling protects public authorities from overreach by appellate bodies and clarifies the boundaries between administrative accountability and criminal liability under the Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that once a civil suit concludes with a final judgment, Section 195(1)(b) CrPC cannot be invoked to launch criminal proceedings for false testimony given in that suit. This reinforces the principle that civil disputes must be resolved within the civil framework and prevents criminal law from being weaponized to relitigate settled civil matters.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that courts must exercise judicial discretion in cases of complainant non-appearance, considering adjournments or proceeding on evidence rather than ordering automatic acquittal. This holding reinforces procedural fairness and prevents mechanical dismissals in criminal trials.

Bombay High Court quashes prosecution of directors under the FSS Act, ruling that vicarious liability requires specific allegations of active involvement in daily operations. The judgment clarifies that mere directorship without proof of control does not establish criminal liability, impacting food safety compliance for corporate directors.

Bombay High Court rules that criminal prosecution under Section 85(g) of the ESI Act requires proof of deliberate default, not mere failure to re-produce already verified records. Employers cannot be penalized for non-compliance with repeated verification demands unless a fresh statutory violation is established.