The Supreme Court has clarified that the police are not required to ensure the credibility or authenticity of information at the stage of registering an FIR. If the complaint is of a cognisable offence, then the police are bound to register it. 

The Court reiterated the statement which was previously made in Ramesh Kumari v State (NCT of Delhi).

The Bench made these observations while upholding the order of the Delhi High Court to register the FIRs against former Commissioner and Inspector of the Delhi Police over alleged intimidation, falsification of records and forgery during their CBI deployment.

[Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate claims that advocate Ankush Dhanerwal received over ₹5 lakh from a litigant, promising to bribe a Government Pleader and a Judge for a favorable order. 

Dhanerwal had sought protection from an ex-Sarpanch who, having lost the case, allegedly demanded a refund of his fees. While police recorded that parts of the fee were paid via Google Pay and instalments, the names of the supposed Government Pleader and Judge were not identified.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil described the claims as serious, highlighting threats to the lawyer’s life and concerns regarding judicial integrity.

[Ankush Dhanerwal v State of Punjab and Others]

The Supreme Court has acquitted YouTuber, motivational speaker and business coach Dr. Vivek Bindra of all cases against him. 

Several fraud cases were filed against him and his venture 'Bada Business' in different parts of the country. The complainants had accused him of misleading them, promising them high income through projects. 

Cases were also filed questioning his courses, such as one offering a 10-day MBA.

Following the verdict, Dr. Bindra described the judgment as a victory not just for him but also for the lakhs of youth who have trusted and followed his guidance over the years.

The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the investigation in a cheating FIR against actors Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone for endorsing the Hyundai Alcazar car, allegedly defective.

The FIR, filed in Bharatpur under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC, also names Hyundai Motor India officials.

The court observed that the actors lack nexus to the car’s manufacturing defects and suggested the complainant approach consumer forums instead.

The stay remains in force, with the next hearing scheduled for September 25.

The Telangana High Court quashed three FIRs against a Twitter user for critical posts about the state Congress government, holding that while the comments were harsh, they fall within political expression protected under Article 19(1)(a).

Justice N. Tukaramji issued detailed guidelines for police and magistrates before registering FIRs over social media posts on political matters.

These include verifying if the complainant is the “person aggrieved,” conducting a preliminary inquiry, requiring prima facie materia, especially in cases of alleged public disorder or defamation, and obtaining legal opinion from the public prosecutor.

[Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana]

A Delhi court has ordered NDTV journalist Gargi Rawat to pay ₹10,000 in damages to commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra after holding that her act of “liking” a tweet falsely accusing him of rape amounted to republication.

Iyer-Mitra had sought ₹20 lakh in damages, but the court, citing his history of controversial remarks online, awarded a reduced amount.

Rawat has also been directed to remove the offending tweet from her Twitter/X profile, with 6% interest applicable if damages remain unpaid within two weeks.

[Abhijit Iyer Mitra v Dushyant Arora and Anr]

Former JNU student Umar Khalid has filed a bail plea in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court order that denied him and eight others bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

Khalid faces charges of criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, and several provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The prosecution alleges his involvement in orchestrating the violence.

The February 2020 riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured. The Supreme Court will now consider his plea for relief.

[Umar Khalid v. State of NCT Delhi].

The Delhi High Court has questioned the decision of the Lieutenant Governor to designate police stations as places for recording statements of police officials during a criminal trial.

The Court expressed its concern while stating that such actions compromise the fairness of trials. The petition before the Court also stated that such provisions heighten the risk of fabrication of evidence and coercion.

This provision came through a notification in August, which was met with severe resistance, leading to the suspension of its implementation and a subsequent clarification by the Delhi Police that its officers would have to appear in person before courts to present evidence.

[Raj Gaurav v. Union of India and Ors].

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an immediate stay on the investigation against Dharma Productions in the Shamshera copyright case.

The complaint against the production house was filed by filmmaker Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar, who alleged that the makers of the movie had violated his copyright by using a substantial part of his literary work ‘Kabu Na Chhadein Khet' for the script. He has also sued Yash Raj Films.

These proceedings were challenged by Dharma Productions. The Court has sought the responses of the Delhi Government and Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar in the matter.

[Dharma Productions Private Limited Vs State of NCT Delhi]

The Kerala High Court has quashed a POCSO case against a youth after the minor girl, now above 18 years, stated that they are in a consensual romantic relationship and intend to marry.

The Court noted that the victim and the petitioner were schoolmates who were in a romantic relationship, which turned intimate on a few occasions when the victim was 17 ½ years old, with the full consent of both.

The court noted that continuing prosecution would harm their future and serve no justice, as the relationship was mutual and not exploitative. The court balanced protective intent of POCSO with realities of consensual adolescent relationships.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

The Kerala High Court grants bail to former MLA M. C. Kamarudheen and his business associate T. K. Pookoya Thangal in the Fashion Gold money laundering case, citing absence of prima facie evidence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Section 420 IPC.

The bench noted that alleged business failures during COVID-19 do not establish fraudulent intent, and that plots of land and other assets had already been attached.

Having spent over 265 days in custody and with a trial unlikely to begin soon, the court deems continued imprisonment unwarranted.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas imposed bail terms of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties each.

The Supreme Court sets aside the conviction of a woman under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting her neighbour’s suicide, holding that heated exchanges or physical scuffles among neighbours cannot automatically amount to abetment.

The Court stressed that there must be a clear intent to instigate or provoke the victim to take such a drastic step.

The bench emphasised that mere quarrels, though unpleasant, are commonplace in community living and do not fulfil the legal threshold of mens rea or instigation necessary for convicting someone.

[Geeta v The State of Karnataka]

The Bombay High Court has restrained Mumbai Police from filing a chargesheet against Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja in a cheating case without prior court approval.

The complaint by producer Raghvendra Hegde alleges Sarja took ₹3 crore between 2016–2018 for a film, The Soldier, which was never made, claiming losses of over ₹9 crore with interest.

Sarja admitted receiving funds but argued that a workable script was only given in December 2023, denying any intent to cheat.

The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad passed the order.

The Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between consensual sex on the pretext of marriage, which is subsequently broken and intercourse on a false promise to marry with mala fide intention from the start. 

The Court stated that it must examine whether the accused was going to stand by his promise or made the promise only to satisfy his lust, as this would invite liability for cheating and deception.

The Court stressed that a breach of promise alone cannot be criminalised as rape, unless it is proven that the promise was false from the very beginning.

[Pradeep Kesarwani v The State of Uttar Pradesh]