The Supreme Court has clarified that actual delivery of property is not necessary for an offence under Section 387 IPC.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held that this section penalises the act of instilling fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion, even if no property is handed over.

The court distinguished Section 387 from Section 383, emphasizing it covers the preparatory stage of extortion, not its completion.

As a result, the Allahabad High Court's quashing of proceedings was overturned, and the case has been restored for trial, reinforcing that threats alone are sufficient to sustain charges under this provision. (M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P.)

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, quashing an FIR under Sections 354 & 447 IPC, held that mere use of criminal force against a woman, without intent or knowledge to outrage her modesty, does not constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised that the intention to outrage modesty is a basic ingredient of the offence.

In the case, a septuagenarian woman alleged nephews pushed her in a land dispute, dislodging her headgear.

The court found no evidence of intent to outrage modesty and noted the matter stemmed from a civil property dispute, thus quashing the FIR. (Raja Asif Farooq v UT Of J&K)

The Delhi High Court directed the State to review a life convict’s plea for premature release under the 2004 remission policy. 

Citing Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Emperor Ashoka’s edicts, the Court emphasized reformation over retribution.

Despite past parole violations and old criminal charges, the convict had completed 18+ years in jail (without remission) and received Commendation Certificates from jail authorities. 

The court invoked Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and principles of reformative justice under the Indian Penal Code and CrPC. Authorities have been ordered to decide afresh on his release application within four weeks. (Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi)

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the murder conviction and death sentence previously imposed under the “last-seen” theory, finding insufficient evidence to sustain the charge.

Justice Akil Kureshi noted that merely placing someone near the crime scene, without a clear motive or supporting evidence, does not meet the standard required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish guilt.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to eliminate all other reasonable possibilities.

Granting the benefit of the doubt, the bench acquitted the accused, reinforcing that the burden of proof in criminal cases must be met beyond a reasonable doubt. (State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr.)

In Siddharthnagar district, a woman was arrested after allegedly murdering her husband after 18 years of their marriage and dumping his body in the Rapti River, with assistance from her lover.

Police revealed the couple had drugged the victim, believed to be poisoned, on June 2, then disposed of his body near Balrampur.

The accused, identified as Sangeeta Devi (35) and her partner Anil Shukla (27), were detained following the discovery of skeletal remains and their confessions under interrogation. 

Authorities described the incident as a “chilling rerun of the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case”, highlighting the shocking betrayal and gruesome nature of the crime.

The Supreme Court found that a youth should not be assumed guilty simply because he hid the body of a friend who accidentally shot himself while playing with a service rifle.

The Court held that concealing the body does not automatically indicate guilt in the death.

Based on this reasoning, the youth was acquitted of murder charges, though his conviction under Section 201 of the IPC for concealing evidence was upheld. (Vaibhav v The State of Maharashtra)

A court in Hisar, Haryana, denied bail to YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra, who was arrested on May 26 for allegedly spying for Pakistan. 

The bail application was filed on June 10, shortly after her judicial custody was extended till June 23. 

The police opposed the bail, citing an ongoing investigation, seizure of electronic devices, and alleged encrypted communication with Pakistani handlers. 

Her counsel argued that no sensitive information was shared and challenged the FIR’s legal basis. Notably, the defense claimed her 2023 visit to the Pakistan High Commission occurred before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) came into force, contesting its retrospective application. Next hearing on June 23, 2025. 

The Supreme Court on June 11, 2025, refused to quash criminal proceedings against a former judicial officer accused of incestuous sexual assault of his minor daughter. 

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Manmohan called the allegations “shocking” and upheld the Bombay High Court’s April 15 order allowing charges under IPC Section 354 and various POCSO Act provisions.

The accused argued that the FIR filed in January 2019 was malicious and tied to matrimonial disputes, with alleged incidents from 2014 to 2018.

The Court directed the POCSO trial court to expedite the case’s proceedings.

The Kerala government informed the High Court it is considering declaring snakebite a notifiable disease under the Kerala Public Health Act, 2023, following a proposal by the Director of Health Services.

The Court was addressing concerns over inadequate care for snakebite incidents in schools. Currently, a circular places the full responsibility on school authorities, mandating safety audits, emergency response plans, anti-venom availability, and coordination with health and forest departments.

The Court found this approach lacking inter-departmental coordination and suggested appointing district-wise nodal officers, anti-venom stock data, and a model emergency plan. 

Updated circulars will be submitted to the Chief Secretary for a comprehensive action plan. (Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala & Ors)

The Allahabad High Court quashed a 2015 FIR accusing a brother-in-law of gang rape under Section 376(D) IPC following a compromise between the parties.

The court observed that the dispute arose from intra‑family discord and was not a criminal act impacting society or public morality.

Although the offence under Section 376(D) IPC is grave and non‑compoundable, the complainant, who entered into the compromise consciously and without coercion, confirmed the settlement of the matter.

The Court held that continuing prosecution would abuse the legal process and serve no useful purpose. The petitioners, being closely related, resolved the familial dispute amicably.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet against husband Ghanshyam Soni and his family, filed under Section 498A IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry demands.

The bench found the allegations vague and lacking specifics (no dates, times, or incidents), with no medical or witness evidence. It noted that the petitioner withdrew an earlier complaint, questioning her credibility.

The Court emphasised that Section 498A should not be misused as a weapon to harass family members, citing precedent to prevent omnibus allegations.

Exercising its Constitutional powers, the Court quashed the FIR under Article 142 as continuing the trial would be oppressive and unjust. (Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr)

The Delhi High Court upheld the 12 year sentence and conviction of a 24-year-old man for the 2014 rape of a 60-year-old woman, emphasizing that the absence of an electropherogram report does not undermine the credibility of DNA evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution had established the chain of custody and that the DNA report confirmed the presence of the accused's semen.

Minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were deemed natural under stress.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court maintained that technical omissions like the non-availability of an electropherogram cannot outweigh the strong forensic and testimonial evidence presented in such serious criminal cases. (Sanjay @ Sanju v. State)

Transit remand is a temporary judicial order that permits police to move an accused person from one jurisdiction to another when the arrest occurs outside the area where the case is registered.

It ensures that the accused is first produced before a local magistrate near the place of arrest before being transferred to the court with proper jurisdiction.

This process safeguards constitutional rights and prevents illegal detention.

Governed under Sections 167 and 57 of the CrPC, transit remand ensures that custody during inter-state or inter-district transfers remains lawful and supervised by a magistrate.

The Supreme Court refused to reduce the 18-month imprisonment of a lawyer, Sanjay Rathore, convicted under Sections 509, 189, and 353 of the IPC. 

Rathore had used abusive and sexually insulting language toward a woman judicial officer after his case was adjourned.

The bench observed that such behaviour, if tolerated, would make it difficult for women judicial officers, who form a majority in Delhi, to function safely. The petitioner, citing family issues, sought leniency.

The Court has granted him two weeks to surrender, and the matter will be heard next on the 24th of June 2025. (Sanjay Rathore v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.)