29 March 2025 Legal Updates

   'Instigation Must Have Close Proximity to Suicide', Supreme Court Quashes Abetment To Suicide Case Against Business Partners  

a. Case Title:

• R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka & Others  

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India  

c. Date of Decision:

• March 27, 2025  

d. Bench:

• B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, JJ.  

Facts:

The appellant’s husband was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions along with respondents 2 and 3.  He was found dead by suicide on April 14, 2024. Initially, police closed the case as an "unnatural death."  On May 18, 2024, the appellant (his wife) claimed to have found a suicide note alleging that respondents 2 and 3 had cheated him, forged documents, and caused him financial losses of ₹60 crore.  
Based on this, an FIR was registered under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.  

The High Court quashed the FIR, stating:

•  No direct instigation to suicide (Section 306 IPC).  
•  The wife could not file a cheating complaint for acts allegedly committed against her deceased husband (Section 420 IPC).  

Supreme Court’s Analysis & Decision:

1. On Abetment to Suicide (Section 306 IPC):  

The Court upheld the quashing, citing no proximate link between the alleged acts and suicide.  

• Referred to Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024), where a one-month gap between alleged instigation and suicide was held too remote to establish abetment.  
• The suicide note was an afterthought (filed 39 days after death), weakening the case.  

2. On Cheating (Section 420 IPC):  

• The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, criticizing its casual approach.  
• Held: The High Court should have examined investigation materials (e.g., forged documents) before quashing.  
• Allowed trial court to proceed on cheating charges, but permitted respondents to seek discharge later.  

Key Legal Principles:

• Section 306 IPC: Requires active instigation/provocation with a close nexus to suicide.  
• Section 482 CrPC: High Courts cannot conduct a mini-trial at the FIR stage; must evaluate prima facie allegations.  
• Cheating after death: Legal heirs can pursue cheating cases if fraud is discovered posthumously.  

  Supreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & Expressions  

a. Case Title:

• Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.  

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India   

c. Date of Decision:

• March 28, 2025  

d. Bench:

• Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.   

Facts

• The appellant, an MP, recited a poem at a public event, later posted on social media.  
• A complaint alleged the poem incited communal hatred and violated Sections 196, 197, 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).  
• The High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing the nascent stage of investigation.  

Supreme Court’s Analysis & Decision:

1. On Free Speech (Article 19(1)(a)):

• The poem’s English translation revealed it was about non-violence, love, and resistance to injustice, with no communal references.  
• Held: The poem did not promote enmity (Section 196 BNS) or hurt religious sentiments (Sections 299/302 BNS).  

2. On Police & FIR Registration:  

• Criticized police for misusing penal provisions to stifle dissent.  
• Guidelines issued:  For offences based on speech/writing, police must apply "reasonable, strong-minded person" test (Bhagwati Charan Shukla standard).  
• Section 173(3) BNSS allows preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs for offences punishable by 3–7 years.  

3. On High Court’s Role:  

• Rebuked the High Court for not quashing the FIR despite no prima facie offence.
• Held: Courts must intervene early to prevent abuse of process of law.  

Key Legal Principles:

• Freedom of Expression: Criticism of authority is protected unless it incites violence/hatred.  
• Mens Rea in Speech Crimes: Intent to cause harm must be proven (e.g: Manzar Sayeed Khan).  
• Police Duty: Must respect constitutional rights and avoid frivolous FIRs.  

  Service Charge Is Voluntary Payment By Consumers, Can't Be Made Mandatory On Food Bills: Delhi High Court  

a. Case Title:

• National Restaurant Association of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 

b. Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

c. Date of Decision:

• 28th March, 2025  

d. Bench:

• Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

Key Issue:

Whether the mandatory levy of service charges by restaurants/hotels under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) constitutes an unfair trade practice and violates consumer rights.  

Background:

• The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) issued guidelines (4th July 2022) prohibiting restaurants from adding service charges automatically to bills, mandating transparency, and making such charges optional.
• Petitioners (NRAI and FHRAI) challenged these guidelines, arguing they violate their constitutional right to trade (Article 19(1)(g)) and that service charges are a decades-old industry practice tied to staff welfare.  

Arguments:

1. Petitioners:

•  Service charges are contractual and disclosed upfront (via menus/display boards).  
• Guidelines infringe pricing autonomy and lack statutory backing.  
• Service charges are part of labor settlements and global hospitality norms.  

2.  Respondents (Union of India):  

• Mandatory charges mislead consumers, create financial burden, and amount to unfair trade practices.  
• CCPA has statutory authority under Sections 18(2)(l) and 10 of CPA 2019 to issue guidelines.  

Court’s Analysis:

1. CCPA’s Authority:  

• Upheld CCPA’s power under CPA 2019 to issue binding guidelines to prevent unfair practices (Section 18(2)(l)). Guidelines are not mere advisories but enforceable measures.  

2. Unfair Trade Practice:  

• Mandatory service charges violate Sections 2(47) (unfair practices) and 2(46) (unfair contracts) of CPA 2019. Consumers cannot be forced to pay charges not explicitly agreed upon.  

3. Consumer Rights vs. Business Autonomy:  

• While restaurants can price goods freely, adding hidden charges (like service charges) misleads consumers. Transparency and voluntary consent are paramount.  

4. Public Interest:  

• Service charges often confused with taxes, leading to exploitation. The court emphasized consumer welfare and the need to curb coercive practices.  

Decision:

• The guidelines prohibiting mandatory service charges were upheld as valid and reasonable.  
• Restaurants must ensure charges are voluntary, prominently disclosed, and not disguised as taxes.  

Significance:

• Reinforces the CCPA’s role in protecting consumer rights against opaque pricing.  
• Clarifies that contractual terms imposing hidden charges are void under CPA 2019.