Legally Sane

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention   The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...

The Supreme Court of India, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288) , delivered a landmark judgment on November 06, 2025, consolidating four matters to resolve a critical constitutional question: whether grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in every criminal case, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023). The lead case arose from a fatal hit-and-run incident on July 07, 2024, in Mumbai, where appellant Mihir Shah, driving a BMW under the influence, struck a scooter, killed a woman by dragging her, and fled. Arrested two days later, he challenged his detention, claiming violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), as grounds were not given in writing. The Bombay High Court upheld the arrest despite acknowledging the lapse, citing Shah’s awareness of the offense and evasion. The Supreme Court framed two questions: (a) whether written grounds are mandato...

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 615) is a significant pronouncement in the realm of criminal law, particularly concerning offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case addresses critical issues related to abduction, gang rape, wrongful confinement, and the applicability of caste-based atrocity provisions. Below is a detailed analysis of the judgment, focusing on the legal principles laid down, the reasoning provided, and the broader implications, while preserving the sanctity of its legal language. 1. Overview of the Case The appeal arose from a challenge to the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Katni. The appellant, Raju @ Umakant, was convicted under Sections 366 (kidnapping or abducting to compel marriag...

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...