In Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 588, the Supreme Court set aside criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against borrowers after a loan dispute had already been resolved through a compromise settlement approved by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Court held that […]
In Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors., 2026:DHC:3806, the Delhi High Court delivered an important and comprehensive judgment delineating the scope, limits, and constitutional validity of Look Out Circulars (“LOCs”), holding that mere default in repayment of loans or financial liabilities cannot justify curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21
In Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors., 2026:DHC:3806, the Delhi High Court delivered an important and comprehensive judgment delineating the scope, limits, and constitutional validity of Look Out Circulars (“LOCs”), holding that mere default in repayment of loans or financial liabilities cannot justify curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21
The landmark judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023INSC866) by the Supreme Court India firmly establishes that the communication of grounds of arrest to an arrested person is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive constitutional and statutory safeguard that must be meaningfully discharged. The Court held that henceforth, written grounds of
Communication And Furnishing Written Grounds Of Arrest Read More »
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran marks a watershed moment in the jurisprudence surrounding Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This landmark decision addresses a critical procedural question that has long plagued complainants seeking redress for dishonoured cheques: whether they can file appeals against acquittal orders as victims
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a Criminal Appeal bearing no. 3831 of 2025 decided on 2nd September 2025, dealt with an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. bearing No. 12607 of 2016 by which the petition filed by the appellant
Steps for Quashing an FIR: SC’s Four-Step Test Explained Read More »
One-Party Consent Call Recordings and the Privacy Paradox Phone call recordings have grown its popularity in this new digital era, serving as both a tool for personal security and a means of gathering evidence in judicial procedures. One of the most important legal challenges involving phone recordings is the concept of one-party consent, which allows
Call Recordings: Evidentiary Value Vs. Privacy Violation Read More »
Police stations across India have, for years, tried to save time by pinging suspects on WhatsApp with a Section 41‑A CrPC notice instead of delivering it by hand. The practice looked efficient—delivery ticks, timestamps, even blue ticks as proof of reading. But on 21 January 2025, a two‑judge Bench in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI drew a red line: “Service of notice
As per Section 154 Cr.P.C./ 175 of BNSS it is provided that it is the duty of the Police Officer to lodge the FIR, if the information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence; thus, in respect of any cognizable offence for lodging the FIR is mandatory for the in-charge of the police station concerned.
Registration Of FIR (First Information Report) Read More »
— January 2025 Orders in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI — Ever since the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court has treated arbitrary arrests and prolonged under‑trial detention as a structural problem that corrodes the criminal‑justice system. The latest directions issued on 21 January 2025 push State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts to convert
Supreme Court Tightens Bail‑Reform Compliance (Satender Kumar Antil Judgment) Read More »