SUPREME COURT
Prasanta Kumar Dhar v. State of West Bengal [Decided on 05-10-2026]
Reaffirming the framework in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and Arti Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2026 SCC OnLine SC 933], the Supreme Court has emphasised that criminal law cannot be indiscriminately extended to every family member without specific overt acts and prima facie material indicating active involvement in cruelty, harassment or dowry demand. The Court therefore quashed all proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, holding that the High Court erred in restricting quashing only to Section 323 IPC.
HIGH COURTS
Akanksha Krishnamohan Shahi v. Union of India & Ors. [Decided on 21-09-2026]
The Patna High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking protection of the identities of child survivors of sexual offences whose personal details are allegedly accessible through publicly available FIR portals in Bihar. The petition pointed to cases where an FIR is initially registered for offences other than those under POCSO and is uploaded online, but POCSO provisions are subsequently added during investigation.
Sonu Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan [Decided on 16-09-2026]
The Rajasthan High Court addressed systemic delays in the adjudication of bail applications for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Bench strongly criticized the police and public prosecutors for repeatedly failing to issue mandatory timely notices to the parents or guardians of POCSO victims. Reaffirming the strict directives previously established in the 2025 precedent Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu v. State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JD:44482], the Court issued fresh guidelines outlining the exact manner and specific details required for executing service of notice, aiming to streamline legal proceedings and prevent undue delays in bail hearings.
Rajasthan Patrika v. State of Rajasthan [Decided on 01-10-2026]
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings for defamation against M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. and its Editor-in-Chief Gulab Kothari, holding that the summoning process was an abuse of the process of law where the complaint and evidence did not attribute any specific role, intention or knowledge to the petitioners in the alleged defamatory publication.
Gaurav Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. [Decided on 08-10-2026]
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR involving allegations of dowry harassment, assault, and cruelty. The Bench ruled that the complaint consisted entirely of general, omnibus allegations devoid of individual attribution or contemporaneous corroboration, filed as an afterthought only after the husband had instituted divorce proceedings. Warning that routinely turning every distressed or short-lived marriage into a criminal prosecution severely undermines the foundational institution of marriage, the Court emphasized that matrimonial discord cannot automatically be treated as criminality or used as a coercive weapon to bypass standard matrimonial courts.
Renuka Jain v. State NCT of Delhi [Decided on 24-09-2026]
The Supreme Court held that victims of offences have the locus standi to approach the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking directions for expeditious completion of criminal trials. The Court clarified that a victim’s role in criminal proceedings is not limited to being a witness and that victims, like accused persons, have a vested right to insist on a speedy and fair trial.
Bombay High Court: Accused Cannot Claim Site Inspection as a Matter of Right in POCSO Trial
Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra [Decided on 13-10-2026]
The Bombay High Court ruled that an accused cannot claim a local inspection of a crime scene under Section 310 of CrPC as a matter of right. The Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a school teacher accused in a POCSO case who sought a judicial inspection of the school’s science laboratory to challenge discrepancies in the prosecution’s spot panchnama. The Court emphasized that Section 310 CrPC vests absolute discretion in the trial court, noting that since key witnesses had already been extensively cross-examined regarding the laboratory’s dimensions and layout, the application appeared to be an ulterior attempt to prolong the trial.
Woman Can Be Charged with Gang Rape Under IPC and BNS; Delhi High Court Upholds Charges
X v. State of NCT of Delhi [Decided on 15-10-2026]
The Delhi High Court held that a woman can be charged with the offence of gang rape under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), even though the statutory definition of rape refers to a man. The Bench held that the expression ‘persons’ in the provisions on gang rape must be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner.
Mohd Saakir v State of U.P. [Decided on 15-10-2026]
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a transgender woman cannot invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) because the provision strictly applies to biological females. The Bench granted bail to the applicant after a medical board confirmed that the complainant was born male and had transitioned through sex-reassignment surgery but lacked a uterus and had not formally updated their gender under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Court emphasized that statutory definitions of a “woman” in criminal law refer strictly to individuals who are female by birth, noting that transgender persons hold a distinct, separate legal identity governed by dedicated legislation rather than gender-specific provisions of the BNS.
Vikas Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Decided on 28-10-2026]
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate who had been declared a proclaimed offender, ruling that an accused’s status as a lawyer does not carve out an exceptional circumstance to shield them from the consequences of public lawlessness, emphasizing that the professional respect extended to officers of the court cannot act as a license for impunity.