A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, while hearing a petition to quash a case, highlighted that the police frequently violate Section 172(1-B) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This section requires that case diaries be properly paginated and maintained.

In January, the same concern was raised, prompting the DGP to issue a circular to all police officers. However, the court found the case diary in question to be “shabby” and improperly maintained.

The bench remarked that investigating officers are either unaware of the circular or pretending to be ignorant. The court stressed the need for strict adherence to DGP directives and statutory requirements.

The court ordered the case diary from Kherwadi police station to be forwarded to the DGP for remedial action and demanded a detailed report by June 28.

Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla heard a petition by Jaiprakash Kulkarni and Pharma Search Ayurveda Private Limited challenging the Banking Ombudsman’s refusal to order the refund. Citing a July 2017 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular and the bank’s Consumer Protection Policy, the court asserted that customers have zero liability in such cases.

The HC emphasized the rising incidence of cyber fraud, stating, “Both as per the RBI circular and the policy of the bank, a customer has zero liability when unauthorized transactions occur due to a third-party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but elsewhere in the system.”

On October 1, 2022, beneficiaries were added to the petitioner company’s bank account without any OTP sent to the registered mobile number. The next day, ₹76 lakh was transferred to various unknown individuals. The petitioners promptly lodged a complaint with the Cyber Cell and informed the bank manager.

Despite the complaint, the Banking Ombudsman rejected their claim, stating the transactions were conducted using valid credentials. However, cyber cell reports confirmed no OTPs were sent to the petitioners. The court found no negligence or collusion on the petitioners’ part.

The court concluded that both the bank and the petitioners were victims of third-party fraudsters. As per the RBI circular, the petitioners were entitled to a refund. The court directed Bank of Baroda to refund the ₹76 lakh within six weeks, criticizing the Banking Ombudsman for inadequate inquiry.

A division bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla emphasized that the burden of proof lies on both the complainant and the accused. “No doubt, chapter XVI on ‘sexual offences’ is a women-centric enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the case that the male partner is always wrong,” the court noted.

The case involved an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The accused had also faced charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In 2019, the woman filed a police complaint in Prayagraj, alleging that the accused had established a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her, also making derogatory remarks about her caste. The accused was charge-sheeted in 2020.

On February 8, 2024, the trial court in Prayagraj acquitted the accused of rape but convicted him under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. The complainant then approached the high court.

The accused argued that their relationship was consensual and that he had refused marriage upon discovering that the woman had lied about her caste. The court found that the complainant, who married in 2010 but separated after two years, had hidden her marital status and caste from the accused.

The court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, noting that the woman maintained a physical relationship with the accused for five years without objection, frequently visiting hotels together. The court concluded that the trial court was correct in acquitting the accused, as the victim’s claims of sexual harassment and rape were unsubstantiated.

Justice Swaminathan noted that the assumption that an unmarried woman above 18 cannot give her child for adoption is flawed. He emphasized that a child’s birth circumstances, such as a live-in relationship or illicit intimacy, should not prevent the mother from ensuring a better future through adoption, especially if the father has abandoned the child.

The case involved a journalist, Ashok Kumar, who wanted to adopt a three-year-old boy “A” from “K,” a minor mother at the time of conception. The Registering Authority refused the adoption due to the lack of the biological father’s consent. However, the court found that “K,” being a Hindu and raising “A” as a Hindu, had the right to give her child in adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Githa Hariharan v. RBI, clarifying that the term “after” in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act signifies absence, not necessarily death. Therefore, the father’s indifference equates to absence, making “K” the competent guardian.

The court directed the authority to register the adoption deed upon fulfillment of other formalities, affirming the mother’s right to decide her child’s future.

The Supreme Court ruled that an administrative enquiry recommendation is essential before initiating legal proceedings against a public servant for dereliction of duty under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision overturns the High Court’s previous findings.

Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti emphasized that this administrative step is a prerequisite for starting penal actions under Section 4(2) of the Act. This provision ensures public servants are protected from unwarranted prosecution by dissatisfied complainants.

The case arose from a complaint against a Station House Officer (SHO) for not registering an FIR under the Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the lack of an administrative enquiry recommendation. The High Court reversed this decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice SVN Bhatti clarified that without an administrative enquiry’s recommendation, any commission or omission by a public servant does not become a cognizable offence. This ensures that allegations of neglect are substantiated before legal action.

The Supreme Court underscored the necessity for administrative enquiries to assess whether a public servant’s conduct was willful or bonafide. The ruling aligns with the Delhi High Court’s decision in Bijender Singh v. State and Anr., mandating an enquiry report before criminal proceedings.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards in prosecuting public servants under the Act.