#CrPC

The Delhi High Court upheld an adverse inference against a husband who failed to file his income affidavit despite six opportunities over 14 months, affirming Rs.20,000 monthly interim maintenance. It also refused to condone a 222-day delay in filing the revision, as the petitioner's ignorance claim was contradicted by his counsel's recorded presence at the hearing.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that voluntary PF/ESPP deductions cannot be deducted from gross salary for Section 125 maintenance, as they are the husband's assets, not mandatory charges. Applying the Supreme Court's Harpreet Sawhney precedent, it quashed a net-salary-based order and remanded for fresh computation on gross income, safeguarding the wife's maintenance entitlement.

The Supreme Court set aside consecutive life sentences for murder and rape imposed in a single trial, holding they must run concurrently under the Muthuramalingam Constitution Bench ruling. The court clarified that Section 31 CrPC does not permit consecutive life terms for offences arising from the same incident, and granted the appellant set-off from his 2010 arrest.

The court quashed a 2014 proclaimed offender declaration after the CBI failed to serve summons at the accused's known Australian address. Section 82 CrPC demands proof of deliberate evasion, not mere non-service; the invalid proclamation does not affect arrest warrants, the INTERPOL Red Notice, or extradition.

Allahabad HC upheld a trial court's order allowing a second Section 216 CrPC application to add Section 307 IPC, ruling medical evidence of a firearm injury and the victim's statement sufficient prima facie material for pre-judgment charge alteration. The court declined Section 528 BNSS interference, affirming trial courts' discretion to alter charges on credible evidence.

The Bombay High Court held that serving a Section 41A CrPC notice after arrest renders the arrest illegal, exposing police manipulation of records and collusion with a developer to frame the petitioner. The court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation, ordered the investigating Sub-Inspector's suspension, and referred the Magistrate to the Administrative Committee for judicial oversight failures.

The Supreme Court held that bail orders ignoring video evidence and failing to record reasons are unsustainable, emphasizing that reasoned decisions are essential to justice. The ruling affects lower courts, mandating detailed reasoning and evidence appreciation in all bail applications.

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash an FIR for serious injuries such as a skull fracture, even if the parties have settled, the Delhi High Court held. The judgment emphasizes that grave bodily harm outweighs compromise, limiting the use of Section 482 in violent offences and guiding future quashal petitions.

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.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

Uttarakhand HC held that a substantive residence, even if temporary, satisfies territorial jurisdiction under Section 126(1) CrPC for Section 125 maintenance claims, overturning the Family Court, Nainital’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Calcutta High Court held that suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands disentitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, setting aside the denial and ordering a trial, thus upholding clean hands doctrine in maintenance cases.

The Delhi High Court ruled that an FIR in a matrimonial dispute cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely on the basis of compromise; a formal divorce decree is necessary. The petition was dismissed, but parties may refile after obtaining a divorce decree.

The Delhi HC ruled that under Section 439(1A) CrPC, the victim must be heard before bail, irrespective of the State’s presence. By quashing the accused’s bail, the court emphasized that victim participation is mandatory and non-waivable.

Gujarat HC quashed FIR against POA holders, ruling vague allegations lacking specific criminal intent amount to abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC. It shields parties in property deals from baseless prosecutions and stresses need for concrete allegations.