Skip to Content

11th February, 2025

1). Supreme Court Imposes Costs on States for Non-Compliance with POSH Act Implementation

Case Background

The Supreme Court has been monitoring the implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Despite earlier directions, many States and Union Territories failed to take proper steps to ensure compliance with the Act.

On December 3, 2024, the Court had issued comprehensive directions for effective implementation of the Act. A key concern was the lack of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in private workplaces, as many companies had been reluctant to comply with the law.

On February 11, 2025, when the Court reviewed the compliance status, it found that several States had delayed filing their compliance affidavits, and some had not filed them at all. As a result, the Court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the defaulting States.

Following directions were passed by the Court on December 3:

(A). Appointment of District Officers and Nodal Officers

1. Appointment of District Officers

  • The State Governments must officially appoint District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, Collectors, Deputy Collectors, and Deputy Commissioners as District Officers in every district.
  • These District Officers will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation of the POSH Act and handling complaints related to workplace sexual harassment.

2. Formation of Local Committees

  • Each District Officer must set up a Local Committee in their district.
  • This committee will handle complaints in cases where:
    • A workplace has fewer than 10 employees (so it is not required to form an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)).
    • The complaint is against the employer himself.
  • If a Local Committee has not been formed, the District Officer must set it up immediately as per Section 7(1) of the POSH Act.

3. Appointment of Nodal Officers

  • Each District Officer must appoint one Nodal Officer in every Block, Taluka, Tehsil (for rural/tribal areas) or Municipality (for urban areas).
  • These Nodal Officers will:
    • Receive complaints of workplace sexual harassment.
    • Forward complaints to the Local Committee within 7 days of receiving them.

4. Role of Chief Secretaries

  • The Chief Secretaries of all States must ensure that District Officers are officially appointed in every district.
  • These officers will act as ex-officio heads for overseeing and enforcing the POSH Act at the district level.

These directions were issued by the Supreme Court to strengthen the enforcement of the POSH Act and ensure better protection for women in workplaces, especially in small establishments and private sectors.

(B). Local Committee – Tenure and Other Conditions

1. Jurisdiction of Local Committee

  • Each Local Committee will have authority over the entire district in which it is formed.

2. Role of Local Committee

  • The Local Committee will function alongside the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).
  • It will handle cases where an ICC has not been formed, such as in workplaces with less than 10 employees (since forming an ICC is not mandatory for small establishments).

3. Complaints Against the Employer

  • If the complaint is against the employer himself, the Local Committee will assist the complainant in seeking justice.

4. Public Notification of Nodal Officers

  • To help women file complaints easily, the names and designations of Nodal Officers must be published on the official website of the District Officer (District Magistrate/Collector).
  • This will ensure that women know where and whom to approach for filing complaints under the POSH Act.

These directions aim to strengthen the grievance redressal system, especially for employees in small workplaces and those facing harassment from their employers.

(C). SHeBox Portal – Implementation and Compliance

1. Publishing Nodal Officer Details

  • In States and Union Territories where the SHeBox portal is available, the government must also publish the names and designations of Nodal Officers for each district on the portal.
  • This will help complainants identify the right officials for filing complaints.

2. Ensuring ICC Formation in Organizations

  • The District Officer must ensure that every organization in the district has set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as required under Section 26 of the POSH Act.
  • If an employer fails to form an ICC, penalties may be imposed.
  • The District Officer must also ensure compliance with Section 20, which outlines the responsibilities of the authorities in enforcing the Act.

3. Survey of ICCs in Public and Private Organizations

  • Chief Secretaries must instruct Deputy Commissioners and District Magistrates to conduct a survey of all public and private organizations in their district.
  • The survey must check how many organizations have formed ICCs and collect this information for official records.

4. SHeBox Portal Monitoring

  • In its October 22, 2024 order, the Court noted that the SHeBox Portal is active and being updated with relevant information.
  • States should regularly access SHeBox to track compliance and ensure that necessary details are being recorded.

5. Uploading Key Information

  • District Officers must upload the required details on the portal to ensure:
    • ICCs are formed in organizations as per Section 4 of the POSH Act.
    • Local Committees are set up as per Section 6 where required.

6. Expanding SHeBox to More States

  • States that have not yet implemented SHeBox should consider setting up their own online portal for registering workplace harassment complaints.

These directions aim to improve accessibility, transparency, and accountability in handling workplace sexual harassment complaints.

(D). Ways for Women to Seek Legal Help

1. Legal Service Clinics and Paralegal Volunteers

  • Women facing workplace sexual harassment can seek assistance from Legal Service Clinics or trained paralegal volunteers.
  • These services are designed to provide free legal aid and guidance to those in need.

2. Legal Helpline – 15100

  • Women can call the national legal helpline number 15100 to report complaints or seek legal advice.
  • This helpline ensures easy access to justice for women who may not know where to go for help.

3. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) Portal

  • Women can also use the Legal Services Management System, details of which are available on the NALSA website.
  • This online platform provides legal aid, case tracking, and access to legal representatives.

4. Alternative Complaint Mechanisms

  • If a woman cannot access the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or the Local Committee, she can file her complaint through:
    • The legal helpline (15100)
    • Legal Service Clinics
    • NALSA’s online platform
  • In serious cases, legal assistance will be provided to help the woman approach the police and file an official complaint.

These directions ensure that every woman has multiple ways to seek justice if she faces sexual harassment at the workplace.

Issues in the Case

  1. Failure of States to Implement the POSH Act – Several States were slow or negligent in ensuring compliance with the Act.
  2. Delayed or Non-Submission of Affidavits – Some States submitted affidavits very late, while others had not submitted them at all.
  3. Private Sector Non-Compliance – Many private companies hesitate to form ICCs, which are required under the Act.
  4. Need for Better Enforcement – The Court emphasized that implementation should be decentralized, meaning local authorities should play an active role.

Court Observations

The case was heard by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. Amicus curiae Padma Priya informed the Court that most affidavits were submitted only recently, some as late as the previous day. However, some States had still not filed their affidavits.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed disappointment and asked how much cost should be imposed for the delay.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh pointed out that even though some States had filed affidavits, the ground reality remained unchanged, meaning the POSH Act was still not properly implemented in many areas.

The Court decided to grant States three more weeks to file their affidavits. However, this extension was given on the condition that each defaulting State pays ₹5,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2025.

Court Rulings & Directions

  • States that failed to submit affidavits must do so within three weeks.
  • Each defaulting State must pay ₹5,000 as a penalty to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
  • A copy of the order must be sent to the State Secretaries for compliance.
  • Amicus curiae Padma Priya will review the affidavits and report on the actual progress made.

As per the office report submitted by the amicus, the following States and Union Territories have filed their affidavits:

  • Nagaland, Goa, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Mizoram, Karnataka, Tripura, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, and Sikkim
  • Union Territories of Chandigarh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and NCT of Delhi

Legal Provisions

  • POSH Act, 2013
    • Section 4 – Requirement for Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in organizations with 10 or more employees.
    • Section 6 – Requirement for a Local Committee in every district to handle complaints where ICCs do not exist.
    • Section 26 – Penalty for non-compliance by employers who fail to form ICCs.
  • Supreme Court Orders
    • May 12, 2023 – Court noted lapses in implementation.
    • October 22, 2024 – Court emphasized use of SHeBox (online complaint portal) and sought compliance updates.
    • December 3, 2024 – Court issued detailed directions for better enforcement, including appointing District Officers and forming Local Committees.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Stronger Enforcement – The penalty imposed by the Supreme Court signals that non-compliance will not be tolerated.
  • Private Sector Accountability – The ruling puts pressure on private companies to set up ICCs and comply with the POSH Act.
  • Decentralized Implementation – The Court stressed that local authorities, such as District Magistrates and Collectors, must take an active role.
  • Clear Deadlines – The Court has given specific timelines for filing affidavits and making payments, ensuring faster compliance.

The Supreme Court’s strict approach in enforcing the POSH Act highlights the importance of protecting women from workplace harassment. The ₹5,000 cost imposed on defaulting States serves as a warning that delays and negligence in implementing the law will have consequences. The next hearing on March 25, 2025, will determine whether the States have finally complied with the Court’s orders.

Case Name: AURELIANO FERNANDES v. THE STATE OF GOA AND ORS., Diary No. 22553-2023 & AURELIANO FERNANDES v. THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF GOA., MA 1688/2023 in C.A.No. 2482/2014 & INITIATIVES FOR INCLUSION FOUNDATION AND ANR.v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1224/2017

2). Supreme Court: Mere Mention of Section 307 IPC in FIR Doesn’t Prevent Case Quashing on Settlement If Charge Isn’t Justified

Case Background

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the mere mention of a non-compoundable offence like Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in an FIR does not prevent the High Court from quashing the case, if the facts do not justify the charge.

The case arose from an appeal against an Allahabad High Court decision, which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 307 IPC, even though a compromise had been reached between the parties. The case had been pending since 1991. The appellant argued that the High Court misunderstood the difference between compounding an offence and quashing proceedings and that continuing the trial would serve no purpose.

Issues in the Case

  1. Can a non-compoundable offence like Section 307 IPC be quashed based on a compromise?
  2. Does the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in an FIR automatically prevent quashing?
  3. What factors should the High Court consider while deciding on quashing a case involving a non-compoundable offence?

Court Observations

The case was heard by a bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. The Court observed that the Allahabad High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between compounding an offence and quashing criminal proceedings.

Key Observations:

  • Compounding vs. Quashing: The Court relied on the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, which clarified that quashing a case due to settlement is different from compounding an offence. Some offences may not be compoundable, but the High Court still has the power to quash proceedings if the facts and circumstances justify it.
  • Nature of Offence Matters: The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, stating that factors like the severity of the injuries, the accused's conduct, and the impact on society must be considered before quashing a case.
  • High Court’s Role in Scrutiny: In Narinder Singh, the Supreme Court emphasized that a High Court should not automatically reject quashing just because Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the FIR. Instead, it must scrutinize whether the facts truly support the charge.

The Court noted that in the present case, the invocation of Section 307 IPC was unjustified. The act of firing was attributed to a co-accused who had since died, and the allegations against the appellant were general and vague. The injury sustained by the victim was minor (a fracture of the left ring finger), and the weapon used did not indicate an attempt to murder.

Court Ruling & Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that:

  1. The facts of the case did not justify a charge under Section 307 IPC. At most, the offence could be categorized under Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon).
  2. The case did not have a severe impact on society and was not one where a settlement should be ignored.
  3. Continuing the trial would be futile and an abuse of the legal process, especially given the long pendency since 1991 and the fact that the parties had already settled their dispute.
  4. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad.

Legal Provisions 

  1. Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder (non-compoundable). (Section 109 of BNS)
  2. Section 326 IPC – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means (serious but compoundable with court permission). (Section 118(2) of BNS)
  3. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Distinguished between quashing of an offence and compounding.
  4. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – Stated that Section 307 IPC should not be applied automatically and that the High Court must scrutinize the facts.
  5. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 – Reiterated that mentioning Section 307 IPC in an FIR does not mean the High Court cannot quash the case.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Clarifies the power of High Courts: The ruling reaffirms that High Courts have the authority to quash non-compoundable cases if the facts do not justify the charge.
  • Prevents misuse of Section 307 IPC: The judgment ensures that serious charges like attempt to murder are not misused without proper factual backing.
  • Encourages fair scrutiny: It emphasizes that courts must closely examine the nature of the offence, the injuries, and the impact on society before rejecting a compromise-based quashing request.
  • Reduces burden on courts: By allowing quashing in appropriate cases, the decision helps in reducing unnecessary litigation and long-pending trials.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that not all cases involving Section 307 IPC must go to trial. The High Court must assess the actual facts of the case and determine whether the charge is justified. In this case, since the injuries were minor, the weapon used was not lethal, and the accused had settled the matter with the victim, the Court rightly quashed the proceedings. This judgment sets an important precedent for similar cases in the future.

Case Name: Naushey Ali & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Anr.

3). Supreme Court: Imprisonment of Judgment Debtor a Last Resort, Courts Must Check Wilful Disobedience

Case Background

The Supreme Court recently ruled that imprisonment of a judgment debtor (a person who has not complied with a court decree) is a drastic step and should only be taken when the debtor has willfully disobeyed the court’s order.

In this case, the original plaintiffs (respondents' legal heirs) had filed a suit for possession and a permanent injunction, which was decided in their favor. However, after almost 40 years, the respondents filed an execution case claiming that the appellants (judgment debtors) were interfering with their peaceful possession of the property.

Since the appellants did not appear in court, the executing court passed an ex parte order rejecting their objections. The court ordered their arrest, detention for 30 days in a civil prison, and attachment of their property. When the appellants challenged this in the High Court, their plea was rejected. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

  1. Can a judgment debtor be imprisoned for failing to comply with a decree?
  2. What conditions must be met before ordering detention under Order 21, Rule 32 of CPC?
  3. Did the executing court and High Court follow the correct procedure in ordering detention?

Court Observations

The case was heard by a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. The Supreme Court emphasized that imprisonment should be used only when the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed a court order, and not as an automatic punishment.

Key Observations:

  • Strict Conditions for Detention: The Court referred to Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which states that a judgment debtor can be detained in a civil prison only if they willfully disobey a decree for an injunction, despite having an opportunity to obey it.
  • Burden of Proof on Decree Holder: The Court ruled that the plaintiff (decree holder) must provide evidence to show that:
    1. The judgment debtor was aware of the decree.
    2. They had an opportunity to comply.
    3. They willfully refused to obey it.
  • Failure to Follow Due Process: The Supreme Court found that the executing court ordered detention without any material evidence proving willful disobedience. It merely relied on the respondent’s claims that the appellants were interfering with the property.
  • High Court's Error: The High Court failed to properly review the execution order. It dismissed the appellants' plea in a single sentence, stating that there was no jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, saying that even procedural fairness issues (like ignoring relevant evidence) could amount to jurisdictional errors.

Court Ruling & Decision

  1. The Supreme Court set aside the detention order, ruling that no imprisonment can be ordered without proper evidence of willful disobedience.
  2. It held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without a detailed examination.
  3. The Court ruled that the decree holder (respondents) can file a fresh execution petition in case of future violations, but must provide proper evidence.
  4. The Registry was directed to circulate this judgment to all High Courts, which in turn must circulate it to District Courts to ensure proper implementation of the law.

Legal Provisions 

  1. Order 21, Rule 32 CPC – Allows the court to order detention in civil prison for willful disobedience of a decree for injunction.
  2. Order 21, Rule 11-A CPC – Requires an affidavit stating grounds for detention to be filed before ordering imprisonment.
  3. Article 227 of the Constitution – Provides supervisory jurisdiction to High Courts over lower courts.
  4. Section 136 of the Limitation Act – States that a decree granting perpetual injunction has no limitation periodfor enforcement.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Ensures Fairness: The ruling reinforces that detention should not be ordered without proper inquiry and evidence.
  • Limits Judicial Overreach: Courts must strictly follow procedural safeguards before ordering imprisonment for decree violations.
  • Protects Rights of Judgment Debtors: A decree holder cannot misuse court orders to unfairly imprison someone without proving willful disobedience.
  • Guidelines for Lower Courts: The decision sets important guidelines for executing courts on how to handle such cases in the future.

The Supreme Court’s ruling safeguards the rights of judgment debtors and ensures that imprisonment is used only as a last resort. The executing court acted hastily by ordering detention without proper inquiry, and the High Court failed in its duty to correct this error. By setting aside the detention order and providing clear guidelines, the Supreme Court strengthens due process and ensures fairness in the enforcement of court decrees.

Case Name: Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick Vs Ranajit Ghoshal., CIVIL APPEAL NO.2248 OF 2025

4). Karnataka High Court: Magistrate Has Discretion to Record Accused’s Statement U/S 313 CrPC If Witnesses Aren’t Examined

Case Background

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a trial court has the discretion to dispense with the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if the accused does not make use of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present a defense.

The case involved Sunil Yadav, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce case). He challenged his conviction by arguing that the trial court did not record his statement under Section 313 CrPC, which deprived him of a fair chance to defend himself. He requested that the matter be sent back to the trial court for fresh proceedings.

Issues in the Case

  1. Did the trial court commit an error by not recording the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC?
  2. Can the accused seek remand of the case if they did not use the available opportunities to defend themselves?

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice H P Sandesh. After reviewing the records, the High Court noted the following key facts:

  • The petitioner did not respond to the initial legal notice.
  • After receiving the court summons, he did not appear, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW).
  • After securing bail, he was given a chance to cross-examine the witness but did not do so.
  • He later requested recall of witnesses twice, which was allowed, but he still did not cross-examine them or present any defense evidence.
  • Since he failed to use these opportunities, the trial court dispensed with his Section 313 CrPC statement and proceeded with the case.

Key Observations by the High Court:

  1. Duty to Cooperate in Trial: The Court stated that an accused must actively participate in the trial. If the accused fails to use the given opportunities, they cannot later claim that they were denied a chance to defend themselves.
  2. No Repeated Issuance of NBW: Once a non-bailable warrant (NBW) is issued and the accused is secured, the court is not required to keep issuing NBWs at every stage to force their participation.
  3. Discretion of Trial Court: Since the accused chose not to cross-examine witnesses or lead defense evidence despite multiple chances, the trial court had the discretion to dispense with his Section 313 CrPC statement and proceed with the case.
  4. No Right to Remand the Case: The accused cannot seek to restart the trial (remand the case) simply because they ignored their earlier opportunities to defend themselves.

Court Ruling & Decision

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

  • The trial court did not commit any error in dispensing with the accused’s Section 313 statement.
  • The accused was given multiple opportunities to defend himself but did not use them.
  • There are no valid grounds to send the case back for a fresh trial.

The Court stated:

"It is not the duty of the Court to issue non-bailable warrants repeatedly to secure the accused. The accused must cooperate in the trial and use the opportunities provided to them. Since the petitioner did not use these opportunities, there is no ground to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration."

Legal Provisions 

  1. Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Allows the accused to explain evidence against them. The court may dispense with this if the accused does not participate in the trial. (Section 351 of BNSS)
  2. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Punishes dishonoring of cheques due to insufficient funds.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Clarifies Trial Court’s Discretion: Courts are not bound to record a Section 313 statement if the accused deliberately avoids participation.
  • Prevents Delay Tactics: Accused persons cannot misuse the legal process to delay trials by ignoring legal opportunities and later claiming unfair treatment.
  • Strengthens Judicial Efficiency: Ensures that trials progress smoothly without unnecessary remands caused by the accused's inaction.

The Karnataka High Court reinforced that the accused must actively participate in their trial. If they fail to use the opportunities given to them, they cannot later demand a fresh trial on procedural grounds. This judgment ensures efficiency in legal proceedings and prevents misuse of the judicial process.

Case Name: Sunil Yadav AND Y C Manju. 

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2020

5). Delhi High Court Rules That Magistrate Cannot Direct Senior Officers like DCP to Register FIR Under Section 156(3) CrPC

Case Background

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate has no power to direct a superior police officer, such as a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case arose from a petition filed by Harmeet Singh, who challenged a sessions court order that had set aside a Metropolitan Magistrate's (MM) order. The MM had directed the DCP (East) to register an FIR based on Singh’s complaint. Singh had filed a complaint against various individuals and police officials regarding the possession of his property by bank officials.

The sessions court overturned the MM’s order, stating that there was no special evidence to justify the registration of an FIR at that stage. It also held that the MM’s direction to the DCP violated the mandate of Section 156(3) CrPC, which only allows directing the officer in charge of a police station to investigate.

Issues in the Case

  1. Can a Magistrate direct a superior police officer like a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC?
  2. What are the correct legal options available to a Magistrate when dealing with a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC?

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the Delhi High Court. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC

  • A Magistrate can only direct the "officer in charge of a police station" to register an FIR and investigate.
  • A Magistrate has no authority to direct a superior police officer, such as a DCP, to register an FIR.
  • Superior officers can only investigate a case suo motu, on orders from a higher authority, or if the government directs them to do so.

2. Sessions Court Was Correct in Overturning the MM’s Order

  • The sessions court correctly ruled that the MM's order was against the legal mandate of Section 156(3) CrPC.
  • The MM should have followed the correct legal procedure instead of issuing an improper direction to the DCP.

3. Correct Legal Options for the Magistrate

Justice Singh clarified that when a complaint is filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate has two options:

  1. Dismiss the complaint or issue notice to the accused.
  2. Postpone taking cognizance and send the complaint to the concerned police station (not to a superior officer like a DCP) for an inquiry or investigation.

4. Singh’s Complaint Was an Attempt to Pressurize the Police

The Court observed that Singh’s filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC appeared to be an attempt to pressurize police officials into taking action. The Magistrate should have explored alternative remedies instead of issuing an incorrect direction to the DCP.

Court Ruling & Decision

  • The High Court dismissed Harmeet Singh's petitions, affirming that the Magistrate had no power to direct the DCP to register an FIR.
  • The Court held that the MM had other legal options, including proceeding under Section 200 CrPC (which deals with examining complaints and witnesses).
  • The High Court reaffirmed that Section 156(3) CrPC only allows a Magistrate to direct the officer in charge of a police station to investigate a case.

Legal Provisions 

  1. Section 156(3) CrPC – Empowers a Magistrate to direct the officer in charge of a police station to conduct an investigation. However, it does not empower the Magistrate to direct a superior officer like a DCP to register an FIR. (Section 175(3) of BNSS)
  2. Section 200 CrPC – Provides that a Magistrate may examine the complainant and witnesses before proceeding further with a complaint. (Section 223 of BNSS)
  3. Powers of Police Officers – Superior officers like DCPs can investigate a case suo motu, on orders from a superior officer, or on government directions, but not on a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Clarifies the powers of Magistrates under Section 156(3) CrPC: The ruling reaffirms that a Magistrate can only direct the local police station to register an FIR and not a superior officer like a DCP.
  • Prevents misuse of the legal process: This judgment prevents individuals from pressuring the police by misusing Section 156(3) CrPC.
  • Sets clear guidelines for handling complaints: It guides Magistrates on how to correctly handle complaints under Sections 156(3) and 200 CrPC.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that a Magistrate cannot direct a superior officer like a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The correct procedure is to either direct the officer in charge of a police station to investigate or proceed under Section 200 CrPC. The ruling ensures that legal procedures are followed correctly and prevents the misuse of judicial powers.

Case Name: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

6). Kerala High Court: Courts Can Require Damage Deposit as Bail Condition for Trespass and Property Destruction

Case Background

The Kerala High Court ruled that a person accused of mischief (Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - BNS) and house trespass (Section 333 of BNS) can be required to deposit an amount equivalent to the damage caused as a condition for getting bail.

The ruling came in response to a case where an accused sought bail after allegedly committing mischief and house trespass. The court considered whether bail should be granted only after depositing compensation for the damages caused.

Issues in the Case

  1. Can courts impose a mandatory condition requiring the accused to deposit compensation for damages before granting bail?
  2. Does such a condition violate fundamental rights or established legal principles?
  3. What are the legal precedents on this issue?

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan of the Kerala High Court, who made the following key observations:

1. Compensation as a Condition for Bail

  • The court held that requiring a deposit is the general rule, and waiving it should be an exception.
  • This condition acts as a deterrent and sends a strong message to society that vandalism and destruction of property will have consequences.

2. Amount to be Deposited

  • The accused can be asked to deposit an amount equal to, half of, or even double the damages caused.
  • If the accused is later found innocent, he can apply to the jurisdictional court to get the deposit back.
  • If convicted, the amount can be given to the victim as compensation.

3. "Legal Pinch" for the Accused

  • The investigation and trial may take time, so imposing this condition ensures some accountability in the meantime.
  • The court referred to this as giving the accused a “legal pinch” to discourage further criminal behavior.

4. Need for a Legislative Change

  • The court suggested that the legislature should consider including this bail condition in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for cases involving house trespass and mischief.
  • As of now, no such provision exists in the BNSS.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Key Supreme Court Precedents Considered

The High Court examined multiple Supreme Court judgments while making its decision:

(i) Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (1980)

  • In this case, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer observed that imprisoning a person due to poverty violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • However, the High Court clarified that this case does not apply here, as mischief and vandalism are crimes.

(ii) Ramratan @ Ramswaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

  • In this case, bail conditions that restricted civil rights were struck down.
  • The Kerala High Court ruled that this case does not apply to mischief and house trespass cases.

(iii) Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023)

  • The Supreme Court had held that requiring cash deposits for bail in cheating cases (Section 420 IPC) was not valid.
  • The High Court said this ruling does not apply here because mischief and house trespass involve property damage.

(iv) Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India (2018)

  • A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that when a person is arrested for violence causing loss of life or property damage, bail can be granted only after depositing compensation or providing security.
  • The High Court relied on this precedent to justify imposing compensation conditions for bail.

Legal Provisions 

  1. Section 324 of BNS (Mischief) – Deals with acts of vandalism or destruction of property. (Section 425 of IPC)
  2. Section 333 of BNS (House Trespass) – Involves unlawful entry into someone’s house or property. (Section 452 of IPC)
  3. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Protects life and personal liberty, preventing unjust imprisonment.
  4. BNSS, 2023 – The procedural law replacing CrPC, under which the court suggested incorporating compensation as a bail condition.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Creates a strong deterrent against vandalism: By requiring deposit of damages before bail, the judgment discourages people from destroying property.
  • Gives clarity on bail conditions: It establishes that bail can be conditional on financial compensation in mischief and house trespass cases.
  • Calls for legislative action: The court recommended that Parliament amend the BNSS to include this rule, making it a permanent legal requirement.
  • Balances victims' and accused’s rights: If the accused is acquitted, they can get their deposit back, ensuring fairness.

The Kerala High Court ruled that bail for mischief and house trespass cases can be granted only after depositing compensation for damages. The decision balances the rights of the accused and victims, ensures accountability, and deters future vandalism. The court also recommended legislative changes to make this condition a permanent part of the law.

Case Name: Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases

Case No: BA 427 & 831 of 2025

10th February, 2025