1). Close Proximity to Suicide Required for Abetment: Supreme Court Quashes Case of Abatement of Suicide Against Business Partners 

Background

The case involved allegations of abetment to suicide and cheating against a business partner of the deceased.

The deceased was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions along with the accused (Respondents 2 and 3). On April 14, 2024, he was found dead by hanging, and the police initially recorded it as a suicide.

Over a month later, on May 18, 2024, the deceased's wife allegedly found a suicide note in his handwriting, accusing his business partners of cheating and blackmailing him, which she claimed led to his death. Based on this, an FIR was registered on May 22, 2024, under:

• Section 306 IPC (Abetment to suicide)
• Section 420 IPC (Cheating)
• Section 506 IPC (Criminal intimidation)
• Section 34 IPC (Common intention)

However, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, ruling that:

• There was no direct instigation from the accused to drive the deceased to suicide.
• The cheating allegation was not valid because the deceased could have complained about it before his death.

The deceased’s wife challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Did the accused directly instigate the deceased to commit suicide?
2. Was there a close link between the alleged harassment and the suicide?
3. Was the High Court correct in quashing the FIR for cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Court Observations

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih upheld the quashing of abetment to suicide charges but revived the cheating charge, making the following key observations:

1. No Close Proximity Between Alleged Harassment and Suicide

• The Supreme Court ruled that abetment to suicide requires a direct and immediate provocation.
• In this case, suicide occurred 39 days after the alleged harassment, breaking the required proximity between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide.
• The Court relied on the case Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835, where a one-month gap between alleged instigation and suicide was found insufficient to prove abetment.

Court’s statement:

"Even taking the allegations at face value, they do not amount to instigation to commit suicide. There is no reasonable nexus between the period of alleged harassment and the date of death."

2. FIR Registration Was an Afterthought

• The Court noted that the FIR was registered more than a month after the suicide and only after the wife found the suicide note.
• It observed that delayed registration raised doubts about whether the suicide note was genuine or whether the complaint was an afterthought.

3. High Court Wrongly Quashed Cheating Charges (Section 420 IPC)

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s decision to quash cheating charges.
• The High Court had ruled that because the deceased did not file a complaint when he was alive, there was no valid cheating case.
• The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that if fraud was committed, a posthumous complaint could still be valid.
• The Court criticized the High Court for quashing the cheating charge without proper reasoning.

Court’s statement:

"The learned Single Judge of the High Court acted in a casual manner while quashing proceedings under Section 420 IPC. If the judge believed there was no cheating, they should have given proper reasons."

Court Rulings

• Abetment to suicide charge (Section 306 IPC) remains quashed: The Court ruled that there was no direct linkbetween the accused’s actions and the suicide.
• Cheating charge (Section 420 IPC) reinstated: The Court ruled that the High Court erred in quashing this charge and directed further investigation.
• Appeal partly allowed: The wife’s appeal was not fully accepted—only the cheating charge was restored.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 306 IPC – Abetment to suicide (requires a direct act of instigation or provocation).
2. Section 420 IPC – Cheating (can be pursued even after the victim’s death if fraud is proven).
3. Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation (not discussed in detail in the ruling).
4. Section 34 IPC – Common intention (applies if multiple people commit an offense together).

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the standard for abetment to suicide: There must be a close and immediate connection between instigation and suicide.
• Prevents misuse of suicide notes: The Court questioned delayed discovery of the note and emphasized that FIRs must not be afterthoughts.
• Reinforces the right to file posthumous fraud complaints: Even if a person fails to complain before death, fraud cases can still be investigated.

The Supreme Court ruled that mere allegations of harassment do not automatically lead to abetment to suicide unless there is a clear, immediate provocation. However, it revived the cheating charge, ensuring that fraud allegations can still be investigated even after a victim’s death.

Case Title: R. SHASHIREKHA VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2). Prior Enmity Can Indicate Motive, but May Lead to False Accusations: Supreme Court Acquits Man in Cold Murder Case

Background

This case involved a 30-year-old murder charge against the appellant-accused, who was convicted of killing Guddudue to prior enmity. The prosecution argued that the motive for the murder was the long-standing hostility between the appellant and the deceased.

The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

1. The deceased himself was armed with a knife, and the appellant only acted in self-defense.
2. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had any intention to kill the deceased.
3. Even if the prosecution’s evidence was accepted, the case should fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC(sudden fight) and not Section 302 IPC (murder).

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, witness statements, and procedural lapses, leading to an acquittal of the accused.

Issues of the Case

1. Does prior enmity between the accused and deceased automatically prove guilt?
2. Can a history of criminal cases against the deceased raise doubts about the prosecution's claims?
3. Were there contradictions and delays in witness testimonies that weakened the case?
4. Was the prosecution able to prove the murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

Court Observations

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih noted several weaknesses in the prosecution's case:

1. Prior Enmity as a Double-Edged Sword

• The Court observed that enmity can both establish motive and suggest false accusations.
• The deceased Guddu had a criminal history and was involved in several cases, including attempt to murder.
• This raised the possibility that the appellant was falsely accused due to their past conflicts.

Court’s statement:

"Enmity is a double-edged weapon. It provides motive, but it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication."

2. Major Contradictions in Witness Statements

The Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts, including:

1. No bloodstains on the clothes of those who carried the deceased to the hospital.
2. Witnesses failed to immediately inform the police, despite a constable being just 50 steps away.
3. Conflicting statements about who was present at the crime scene.
4. Failure to mention the accused’s name in the medical records, despite witnesses claiming they knew who attacked the deceased.
5. Unexplained 45-day delay in recording key witness statements.

Court’s statement:

"These factors cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses."

3. Prosecution Failed to Prove Murder Charge

• The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove that the appellant had a clear intention to kill the deceased.
• Given the uncertainties and contradictions, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

Court Rulings

• The conviction was overturned, and the appellant was acquitted.
• The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder (requires proof of intentional killing).
2. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC – Sudden fight (if death occurs without premeditation in a sudden fight, the charge is culpable homicide, not murder).
3. Benefit of Doubt Doctrine – If there is any reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the accused must be acquitted.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces the principle that enmity alone cannot prove guilt: Prior hostility can be a motive but also a reason for false allegations.
• Protects accused persons from wrongful conviction: If there are contradictions, delays, or weak evidence, courts must give the benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimony: Unexplained delays and inconsistencies can weaken the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court ruled that prior enmity alone is not enough to convict someone of murder. Since the prosecution’s case was filled with contradictions and delays, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges.

Case Title: ASLAM ALIAS IMRAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

3). Supreme Court: Article 311 Does Not Only Allow Appointing Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Government Servants

Case Background

The case involved a state government employee (Respondent) from Jharkhand who was dismissed from service for financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty.

• In 2014, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, and a draft charge sheet with nine charges was prepared.
• The Chief Minister approved the proposal for disciplinary action, including the draft charge sheet, suspension, and appointment of inquiry officers.
• In 2015, the employee was found guilty of six charges.
• In 2017, the State Cabinet approved the dismissal after consulting the State Public Service Commission, and the decision was ratified by the Governor.
• The employee challenged his dismissal, arguing that the charge sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister, violating procedural safeguards.

The Jharkhand High Court agreed with the employee, ruling that without the Chief Minister's separate approval, the dismissal was invalid. The State of Jharkhand appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Is the appointing authority (Chief Minister) required to approve the charge sheet separately before initiating disciplinary proceedings?
2. Does Article 311(1) of the Constitution require that disciplinary proceedings be initiated only by the appointing authority?
3. Did the High Court wrongly apply legal precedents in quashing the dismissal?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.

1. Chief Minister's Approval Was Not Required for the Charge Sheet

• The High Court wrongly applied the decisions in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018), which were based on central government service rules.
• Jharkhand Civil Service Rules do not require the Chief Minister’s approval for issuing a charge sheet.
• The Chief Minister had already approved the draft charge sheet when approving the overall proposal for disciplinary proceedings.

Court’s statement:

"There appears to be no valid reason why approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings would not be regarded as approval of the draft charge sheet too."

2. Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Initiated by a Superior Authority

• Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not require that disciplinary proceedings be initiated by the appointing authority.
• The only safeguard in Article 311(1) is that a state employee cannot be dismissed by an authority lower than their appointing authority.
• The Deputy Commissioner (a superior authority) initiated the proceedings, and the State Cabinet ratified the dismissal, so the process was legally valid.

Court’s statement:

"Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority."

3. Dismissal Was Lawful and High Court’s Interference Was Unjustified

• The charge sheet was issued correctly, and due process was followed, making the High Court’s ruling incorrect.
• Since the Chief Minister had already approved the disciplinary process, no additional approval was needed.

Court’s statement:

"The High Court occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice by interfering with the dismissal on a wholly untenable ground."

Court Rulings 

• The Supreme Court overturned the Jharkhand High Court’s decision and upheld the dismissal of the employee.
• However, the Court allowed the respondent to file an appeal or revision within one month on other grounds.

Legal Provisions 

1. Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India – Protects civil servants from dismissal by an authority lower than the appointing authority but does not require disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by the appointing authority.
2. Jharkhand Civil Service Rules – Do not mandate that the Chief Minister must separately approve charge sheets before disciplinary action begins.
3. Precedents Considered:
   • P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993) – Held that disciplinary proceedings do not have to be initiated by the appointing authority.
   • B.V. Gopinath (2014) & Promod Kumar, IAS (2018) – Applied to central government services, not state rules.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the role of appointing authorities in disciplinary proceedings: The appointing authority’s approval is required for dismissal but not for starting disciplinary action.
• Prevents unnecessary legal challenges: Employees cannot challenge dismissals on procedural technicalities if rules do not require extra approvals.
• Ensures efficient disciplinary action: State authorities can act against misconduct without bureaucratic delays.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Chief Minister’s separate approval was not required for issuing the charge sheet. The dismissal was valid, and the High Court erred in interfering. However, the employee was allowed to appeal on other grounds within one month.

Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VS. RUKMA KESH MISHRA

4). Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest and Remand: Giving Arrest Memo Not Same As Supplying Grounds Of Arrest

Case Background

The case involved an appellant who was arrested in December 2023 based on a First Information Report (FIR) under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 384 – Extortion
• Section 420 – Cheating
• Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating
• Section 471 – Using a forged document as genuine
• Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult a woman
• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy

After his arrest, he was remanded to police custody for three days. He challenged his arrest and remand before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that:

1. Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was not followed – (Notice before arrest in certain cases).
2. He was not given an opportunity to be heard at the time of remand.
3. He was not informed about the grounds of his arrest, violating Section 50 of CrPC.

The High Court refused to entertain his petition, following which he appealed to the Supreme Court, which focused on the third ground—non-furnishing of grounds of arrest.

Issues of the Case

1. Was the appellant properly informed about the grounds of his arrest, as required under Section 50 of CrPC?
2. Did the arrest memo qualify as a valid communication of arrest grounds?
3. Did the non-compliance with Section 50 vitiate the arrest and remand?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal.

1. Arrest Memo Did Not Satisfy the Requirement Under Section 50 CrPC

• The document provided to the accused was an arrest memo, but it lacked essential details such as the specific charges against him.
• The memo only mentioned:
  • The accused’s name
  • The place of arrest
  • A statement that he was arrested based on the co-accused’s statement
• The Court found this insufficient because it did not inform him of the actual legal grounds for his arrest.

Court’s statement:

"We are in agreement with the submission that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him."

2. Violation of Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution

• Section 50 of CrPC requires that every person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the grounds of their arrest.
• This provision is derived from Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of an arrested person to know the reasons for their arrest.
• The failure to provide clear grounds of arrest violated both CrPC and constitutional rights.

Court’s statement:

"This being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50, which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment."

3. Reliance on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024)

• The Court relied on the precedent set in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) 8 SCC 254, which held that:
  • Supplying written grounds of arrest is mandatory under Section 50 CrPC.
  • If not complied with, the arrest and remand become legally invalid.
• Since the appellant was not given proper written grounds, his arrest and remand were illegal.

Court Rulings 

• The Supreme Court set aside the appellant’s arrest and remand, ruling that his fundamental rights were violated due to non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC.
• The High Court’s order was overturned, and the case was remitted for reconsideration.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Mandates that an arrested person must be informed in writing of the reasons for their arrest.
2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India – Provides that no person can be arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
3. Precedent Applied:
   • Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) 8 SCC 254 – Ruled that failure to provide written grounds of arrest invalidates the arrest and remand.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reaffirms the right of an accused to be informed of arrest grounds: Ensures that police officers must comply with Section 50 CrPC when making arrests.
• Strengthens constitutional protections under Article 22(1): Reinforces the fundamental right to fair procedure.
• Ensures that improper arrests can be challenged and overturned: Prevents arbitrary arrests based on vague or incomplete reasons.

The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and remand of the appellant were invalid due to a failure to provide proper written grounds of arrest, violating Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Citing Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), the Court set aside the arrest and remand, ensuring that legal procedures must be followed to protect individual rights.

Case Details: ASHISH KAKKAR v. UT OF CHANDIGARH|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1518 /2025

5). Telangana High Court: Cohabitation Based on Deception Without Proven Customary Divorce  from First Wife Amounts to Rape

Case Background

The case involved a legal dispute between a husband (respondent) and wife (appellant), where the wife sought:

1. A declaration that their marriage was void because the husband was already married at the time of their wedding.
2. Rs. 1 crore as alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on March 8, 2018, at Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta, following Hindu rituals. However, the appellant later discovered that the respondent was still legally married to his first wife.

The appellant approached the Sessions Court, seeking:

• A decree of nullity of marriage under Sections 5, 11, and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
• Alimony of Rs. 1 crore.

The Sessions Court dismissed her petition, stating:

1. The appellant knew about the respondent’s first marriage before marrying him.
2. The appellant failed to submit evidence proving the respondent’s financial status to support her alimony claim.

The appellant then challenged this order before the Telangana High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Was the marriage between the appellant and respondent void due to the respondent’s existing marriage?
2. Did the respondent prove that he obtained a valid customary divorce from his first wife?
3. Did the respondent commit rape under Section 375 IPC by deceiving the appellant into cohabitation under false pretenses?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao.

1. The Marriage Was Void Since the Respondent Was Already Married

• Under Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage is void if one of the parties already has a living spouse at the time of marriage.
• Since the respondent did not obtain a valid divorce from his first wife, his second marriage to the appellant was void ab initio (invalid from the beginning).

Court’s statement:

"If the husband is already a married man, the subsequent marriage is void ab initio and has no sanctity in law."

2. No Evidence of Customary Divorce

• The respondent claimed that he divorced his first wife in 2008 through customary practices, but he failed to provide any evidence.
• Customary divorce must be proven through oral or documentary evidence. The respondent did not present any such proof.
• The Trial Court failed to frame an issue regarding the validity of the customary divorce, which was a serious oversight.

Court’s statement:

"The respondent did not lead any evidence to prove that a customary divorce had taken place. Apart from mere claims, no document or testimony was provided to establish that the divorce followed any recognized customary practice."

3. Cohabitation Based on Deception Amounts to Rape (Section 375 IPC)

• The appellant consented to the marriage and physical relationship based on the belief that the respondent was legally divorced from his first wife.
• Since this was false, her consent was obtained through deception, making the act rape under Section 375 IPC.
• Section 375, Fourthly states that if a man knows he is not legally married to a woman but makes her believe he is, and engages in a physical relationship with her, it amounts to rape.
• The respondent was aware that his marriage was not valid, but he still cohabited with the appellant under false pretenses.

Court’s statement:

"Since the respondent knew at the material point of time that he had a wife living and the appellant consented to physical relations believing him to be her lawfully-wedded husband, the respondent is guilty of rape under Sections 375 and 376 IPC."

Court Rulings 

1. The Sessions Court’s order was set aside.
2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared void.
3. Charges under Section 375 IPC were applicable against the respondent.
4. The Sessions Court’s findings were criticized for making baseless assumptions about the appellant’s knowledge of the respondent’s first marriage.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – A valid Hindu marriage requires both parties to be unmarried at the time of marriage.
2. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – If one spouse is already married, the second marriage is void.
3. Section 375 IPC (Rape) – “Fourthly” Clause – Sexual intercourse with a woman who mistakenly believes she is lawfully married to the man is rape if the man knows he is not her legal husband.
4. Section 376 IPC – Punishment for rape.
5. Sections 63 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Address similar legal provisions as IPC regarding rape and deception in marriage.
6. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Provides for alimony and maintenance.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens legal protection against fraudulent marriages – Ensures that women deceived into illegal marriages have a legal remedy.
• Reinforces the legal definition of rape – Establishes that deception regarding marital status leading to sexual relations qualifies as rape under Section 375 IPC.
• Clarifies the requirement of proving customary divorce – Emphasizes that a mere claim of customary divorce is not enough; it must be backed by evidence.

The Telangana High Court ruled that:

• The marriage between the appellant and respondent was void because the respondent was already married at the time.
• The respondent failed to prove that he obtained a valid customary divorce from his first wife.
• Since the appellant was deceived into believing she was legally married, charges of rape under Section 375 IPC applied against the respondent.
• The Sessions Court’s findings were flawed, and its order was set aside.

This judgment reinforces the importance of truthfulness in marriage and protects individuals from deception-based exploitation.