Thursday, 27 August 2026

The dispute. An accused faced an FIR alleging a fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme involving ten lakh rupees. After police filed a cancellation report finding no incriminating material, senior police leadership issued an administrative directive ordering further investigation. The accused approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking to set aside the executive directive.

The reasoning. Once a cancellation report is filed, exclusive jurisdiction vests in the magistrate to accept it or order further inquiry. Investigating agencies cannot bypass judicial oversight by issuing executive directives without prior leave of the court.

The power to direct further investigation rests with the Magistrate/Court concerned and not with the investigating agency.

For your practice. Post-report police inquiries remain void unless the investigating agency obtains prior judicial leave under Section 193(9) BNSS from the jurisdictional magistrate.

The order. The High Court quashed the executive directive and record-transfer order, directing the magistrate to consider the cancellation report within one month.

Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Case

TARUN TRIKHA vs STATE OF HARYANA & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · CRM-M/44031/2026 · 26.08.2026

Bench

Manisha Batra

The dispute. A mother transferred a residential plot to her son through a registered sale deed and obtained revenue mutation. Following a third-party objection, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the registered instrument citing the lack of a development authority no-objection certificate. The mother and son approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging the cancellation and review orders as wholly without jurisdiction.

The reasoning. Once an instrument is registered, the registering authority becomes functus officio and cannot revoke registration. General administrative rescission powers cannot extinguish vested property rights, which can only be annulled by a competent civil court.

There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration.

For your practice. Parties seeking to invalidate a registered conveyance must institute a civil suit, as revenue and district authorities lack jurisdiction to entertain administrative cancellation.

The order. The High Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's cancellation and review orders dated 27 August 2024 and 17 December 2024, restoring the registered status of the sale deed without costs.

Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897

Case

NILIMA BAISHYA AND ORS W/O-LATE MANIK CHANDRA BAISHYA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & ors.

Citation

Gauhati High Court · WP(C)/3111/2025 · 2026:GAU-AS:12237 · 26.08.2026

Bench

Anjan Moni Kalita

The dispute. A complainant initiated criminal defamation proceedings against an advocate alleging defamatory remarks published in an online news portal interview. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the summoning order and all consequential proceedings.

The reasoning. Under Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, an imputation is defamatory only if it lowers reputation in others' estimation, requiring independent witness evidence.

For your practice. Defamation complaints founded on online reports must include Section 65B certificates and independent witnesses to demonstrate actual reputational lowering before summons can.

The order. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the summoning order dated 20 April 2019 along with all consequential criminal defamation proceedings.

Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

PINAKI MISRA vs STATE & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-2595/2019 · 2026:DHC:7169 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Swarana Kanta Sharma

The dispute. Four men were convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly gang-raping and fatally poisoning two minor sisters. The prosecution relied primarily on fluctuating statements from the victims' mother and custodial disclosure statements leading to the recovery of a herbicide bottle. The convicts appealed against their convictions and death sentences, which came before the High Court alongside the State's death confirmation reference.

The reasoning. Custodial disclosures are inadmissible under Section 27 unless they lead directly to discovering a fact unknown to investigators.

For your practice. Defence counsel should scrutinise seizure timelines to exclude Section 27 disclosures whenever the recovered object was already within police custody or knowledge.

The order. The High Court set aside the death sentences, acquitted all four accused of all charges, and ordered their immediate release on personal bonds under Section 481 BNSS.

Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Case

STATE OF HARYANA vs ARUN & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · MRC/9/2023 · 2026:PHHC:119432-DB · 26.08.2026

Bench

Yuvra, Anoop Chitkara

The dispute. A director challenged a central ministry order directing a serious fraud investigation into two retail companies undergoing insolvency. While the ministry issued the order from New Delhi, the companies maintained their registered offices, corporate records, and liquidation proceedings in Mumbai. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the investigation order.

The reasoning. The Court held that Article 226(2) jurisdiction requires a substantive dispute nexus rather than the mere seat of the issuing ministry.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution undoubtedly enables a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

For your practice. Litigants challenging central regulatory orders must approach the High Court where the entity's registered office, records, and substantive proceedings reside.

The order. The Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, leaving the petitioner to pursue the challenge before the Bombay High Court.

Section 212(1)(c), Companies Act, 2013

Case

ANIL LAXMINARAYAN BIYANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-971/2026 · 2026:DHC:7177 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Swarana Kanta Sharma

The dispute. A petitioner who was neither a borrower nor a guarantor of a bank loan challenged recovery proceedings. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal conditioned his statutory appeal on a twenty-five percent pre-deposit of the outstanding debt. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the onerous condition imposed on his appeal.

The reasoning. The High Court held that the third proviso applies only to borrowers and cannot be extended to third parties. The tribunal erred in imposing the pre-deposit without examining the appellant's non-borrower status.

For your practice. Counsel representing third parties can resist pre-deposit demands in SARFAESI appeals where the appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor.

The order. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the pre-deposit direction, and remitted the matter for fresh determination.

Section 18(1), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Case

Sri Kartikey Garg v. State Bank of India

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · WPMS/2362/2026 · 2026:UHC:7709 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

The dispute. A life convict who served nearly sixteen years of actual imprisonment sought premature release, demonstrating jail commendations and educational qualifications. The Sentence Review Board rejected his plea by relying mechanically on the gravity of the murder and past criminal history. The convict challenged the board's rejection order by filing a writ petition before the High Court seeking fresh consideration.

The reasoning. The High Court held that fourteen years of incarceration confers eligibility rather than an automatic entitlement to premature release.

The decision of the SRB dated 24.04.2025 cannot be sustained in its present form.

For your practice. The decision clarifies that merely completing fourteen years of actual imprisonment does not guarantee premature release. Lawyers must now ensure that applications highlight the inmate’s conduct, rehabilitation activities and socio-economic circumstances to satisfy the discretionary criteria under Rule 1251 and Rule 1257.

The order. The Court set aside the SRB decision and remitted the matter to the SRB for fresh consideration, directing a reasoned order within three months.

Rule 1251, Delhi Prison Rules, 2018

Case

RISHI RALLAN vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(CRL)-2294/2025 · 2026:DHC:7170 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Swarana Kanta Sharma

The dispute. A complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging cruelty, theft, and intimidation against her husband and four outside associates. The named co-accused included researchers and students who had no familial, matrimonial, or adoptive relationship with the husband. The four acquaintances approached the High Court under inherent criminal powers seeking quashing of the first information report.

The reasoning. The High Court held that statutory cruelty provisions strictly require the accused to be the husband or his relative by blood, marriage, or adoption.

It is settled law that the court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners.

For your practice. Lawyers must now prove a blood, marital or adoptive link to invoke domestic-violence provisions; vague FIRs lacking specific allegations against named accused will be quashed, curbing misuse of criminal process.

The order. The Court quashed the FIR (CGR case no. 2086/2025) and dismissed CRR 5550 of 2025, ordering that no investigation proceed against petitioners Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas and Soham Dasgupta. The order is effective immediately.

Section 85, BNS Act, 2023

Case

Purba Chatterjee & ors. v. State of West Bengal & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · CRR/5550/2025 · 2026:CHC-AS:1344 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

The dispute. An individual assessee opting for the new tax regime reported short-term capital gains from share transactions for assessment year 2024-25. The revenue rejected his twenty-five thousand rupee tax rebate claim, citing administrative circulars excluding income taxed at special rates. The revenue appealed to the tribunal against the computation while the assessee pursued cross-objections seeking full statutory rebate.

The reasoning. The tribunal held that the statutory rebate applies to total income without any legislative exclusion for short-term capital gains.

For your practice. Tax counsel can claim the rebate on short-term capital gains under the new regime for relevant assessment years despite contradictory departmental circulars.

The order. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowed the assessee's cross-objection, and directed the assessing officer to grant the rebate of twenty-five thousand rupees.

Section 87A, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Gaurav Sharma, Jaipur

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No. 698/JPR/2026 & CO No. 11/JPR/2026 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Annapurna Gupta, Kuldip Singh

The dispute. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs 1 lakh under section 80GGC for a political donation during assessment year 2019-20. Following a search on third-party political outfits, the Assessing Officer issued a section 148 notice in April 2023 to disallow the deduction as bogus. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition holding the notice time-barred, prompting the Revenue to appeal and the assessee to file cross-objections.

The reasoning. The Tribunal held that section 149(1)(a) imposes a strict three-year limitation on reopening notices when escaped income is below Rs 50 lakh.

In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the jurisdiction assumed by the AO to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not as per law and was invalid.

For your practice. Lawyers must now verify the exact amount of income escaping assessment before relying on the extended limitation under section 149. When the amount is below Rs 50 lakh, the three-year bar is absolute, even if the AO follows section 148A procedures.

The order. The Court held that the notice issued under section 148 on 12.04.2023 was beyond the three-year limitation prescribed by section 149(1)(a) because the income escaping assessment was Rs 1,00,000, i.e., less than Rs 50 lakh. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 was declared invalid.

Section 149, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Mayank Khandelwal,Jhotwara, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur, ...

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No. 381/JPR/2026 · 25.08.2026

Bench

Kuldip Singh, Annapurna Gupta