9 September 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT SUMS UP PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEW JURISDICTION, SETS ASIDE HC ORDER DENYING DAUGHTER HER COPARCENARY RIGHT

(a) Case Title:

• Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 8, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Facts

• This case involves a property dispute within a Hindu joint family. Subramani filed a partition suit in 2000 against his father Munusamy Naidu for equal division of ancestral properties. The suit was filed without including Malleeswari (Munusamy's daughter) as a party. The trial court passed an ex-parte preliminary decree in 2003 granting partition.
• After the preliminary decree, Munusamy Naidu sold some properties to K. Suguna and settled others in favor of his daughter Malleeswari through a settlement deed. When Munusamy died in 2011, Malleeswari was brought in as his legal heir.

Key Legal Issues

• Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005: Malleeswari claimed equal coparcenary rights as a daughter under the 2005 amendment, seeking 1/3rd share in ancestral properties
• Validity of property transactions: Whether the sale to K. Suguna after the preliminary decree was valid
• Review jurisdiction: Whether the High Court exceeded its review powers under Section 114 and Order 47 of CPC

Legal Journey

• Trial Court (2019): Dismissed Malleeswari's application to amend the preliminary decree, holding that HSA 2005 couldn't be applied retroactively and that she was estopped from challenging the sale
• High Court (2022): In Civil Revision Petition, set aside the trial court order and allowed Malleeswari's claim for 1/3rd share based on Vineeta Sharma case
• High Court Review (2024): Allowed review application and remanded the entire matter to trial court for fresh inquiry

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the 2022 High Court order. The key findings were:

• Review Jurisdiction Exceeded: The High Court's review order went beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction by reappreciating facts and recording fresh findings
• Distinction Between Review and Appeal: Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors on record, not for substituting views or rehearing matters
• Valid Coparcenary Rights: Upheld Malleeswari's right to claim 1/3rd share under HSA 2005

ARTICLE 226 CAN'T BE INVOKED TO QUASH CHARGESHEET IF COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN; REMEDY AVAILABLE UNDER S.528 BNSS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 3, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition was filed under both Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

High Court's Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it had become "infructuous" (pointless) because the police had filed a chargesheet during the pendency of the petition. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to support this conclusion.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court had misapplied the Neeta Singh precedent due to crucial factual differences:

• In Neeta Singh: The petition was filed only under Article 226, and cognizance had already been taken by the criminal court.
• In the present case: The petition invoked dual jurisdiction under both Article 226 and Section 528 of BNSS, and it was unclear whether cognizance had been taken.

Key Legal Principles Established

• Dual Jurisdiction: When a writ petition invokes both Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS, the court retains power to quash FIRs/chargesheets even after filing of chargesheet, provided cognizance hasn't been taken.
• Post-Cognizance Powers: Even if cognizance is taken, Section 528 BNSS empowers courts to quash FIRs, chargesheets, and cognizance orders if a strong case is made.
• Factual Distinction Matters: Courts must carefully examine factual similarities before applying precedents.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order and remanded the case, directing the High Court to consider the petition afresh on merits.

EDUCATED WOMAN IN RELATIONSHIP DESPITE KNOWING PARTNER'S MARITAL STATUS CAN'T BE SAID TO BE EXPLOITED IN LAW: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 3, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Facts of the Case

The petitioner Ankit Raj was accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape) by complainant 'SP', a 24-year-old woman from Bihar. The complainant alleged that both families initially met for an arranged marriage proposal where a dowry demand of ₹1 crore was made. After the formal proposal failed, they continued meeting and developed a relationship. The accused established physical relations with her on multiple occasions on the false promise of marriage. The accused married another woman ('X') in April 2024 for a dowry of ₹60 lakhs while continuing the relationship with the complainant. The accused threatened her and subjected her to mental harassment.

Key Legal Arguments

• Petitioner's Defense: The relationship was consensual. They were actually married on January 21, 2024, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur, Bihar (marriage certificate produced). The marriage was kept secret at the complainant's request as she wanted to focus on UPSC preparation. The complainant refused to disclose the marriage to families, leading to family pressure for a second marriage.
• Complainant's Position: Physical relations were induced by false promise of marriage. No valid marriage took place; the certificate was fabricated. The accused never intended to marry her from the beginning.

Court's Analysis and Key Legal Principles

1. Law on Consent and False Promise of Marriage

• The court referenced Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, establishing that:
• There must be adequate evidence that the accused had no intention of marrying from the initial stage. Courts must distinguish between "mere breach of promise" and "not fulfilling a false promise". The accused can be convicted only if the court concludes the intention was mala fide with clandestine motives.

2. Assessment of Evidence

• The court found that the marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir was verified by the investigating officer. The complainant herself referred to the accused as her "husband" before the CAW Cell. The complainant continued physical relations even after knowing about the second marriage. The relationship spanned over a considerable period with voluntary travel and cohabitation.

3. Judicial Observations on Proliferation of False Cases

The court made significant observations about the misuse of rape laws:

• Criminal justice system is increasingly burdened with Section 376 cases based on failed consensual relationships
• Adults must take responsibility for voluntary decisions in intimate relationships
• Law cannot be used to shield parties from foreseeable consequences of conscious choices
• Such misuse trivializes genuine cases of sexual assault

Decision

The court quashed the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC, holding that:

• The evidence showed a consensual relationship rather than one induced by false promise
• The marriage certificate indicated the accused did intend to marry the complainant
• The complainant's continued participation in the relationship after knowing about the second marriage negated the claim of deception
• No ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC were established

Key Legal Takeaways for CLAT

• Consent in Sexual Offences: Consent must be free, voluntary, and not obtained through deception from the very beginning
• False Promise vs. Breach of Promise: Legal distinction between making a false promise (criminal) and being unable to fulfill a genuine promise due to circumstances
• Burden of Proof: Prosecution must prove mala fide intention from inception, not just failure to marry
• Judicial Restraint: Courts will not sit in moral judgment over relationships between consenting adults
• Misuse of Criminal Law: Growing concern about conversion of failed relationships into criminal cases