Victims of Heinous Crimes Cannot Be Subjected to Repeated Trauma of Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

Posted inCode of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)No Comments
While setting aside an order permitting the recall of a rape survivor for further cross-examination, the Supreme Court, in The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed [2026 INSC 584], observed that witnesses, particularly survivors of heinous crimes such as rape, should not be repeatedly subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination merely because of a change in defence counsel or an earlier oversight. The Court made this observation while considering the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Courts and Advocates Must Exercise Caution in Frivolous POCSO Cases Arising from Matrimonial Disputes

Posted inPOCSO CasesNo Comments
The Supreme Court, in Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [2026 INSC 587], has cautioned that legal practitioners must not advise estranged spouses to file false matrimonial cases or frivolous complaints under the POCSO Act as a means to harass the opposite party or to secure favourable settlements in matrimonial and family disputes.

Suit for Damages for Malicious Prosecution Abates When Defendant Dies

Posted inUncategorizedNo Comments
A claim for damages arising from malicious prosecution does not survive against the legal heirs of a defendant who dies during the pendency of the trial. Under the long-standing common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person), actions for personal torts—such as malicious prosecution and defamation—abate entirely upon the death of either the plaintiff or the defendant.

Magistrate’s Permission Required for Police to Conduct Further Investigation: Supreme Court

Posted inCode of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)No Comments
In the absence of express permission from the Magistrate, the police cannot proceed with further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), after filing a closure report, the Supreme Court has reiterated in Paliniswamy Veeraraja & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [2026 INSC 561].

A Property That Lies Fallow or Gets Waterlogged Seasonally Cannot Come Under the Definition of Paddy Land or Wetland

Posted inKerala Paddy and Wetland Act 2008
Merely because a property is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, observed the Kerala High Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (2) KLT 192].

Law Relating to Conversion of Paddy or Wetland in Kerala

Posted inKerala Paddy and Wetland Act 2008
The owner or the person in custody of any paddy land or wet land in Kerala shall not have any power to convert or reclaim such lands, since the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (2008 Act) on 12th August 2008 and the allied rules enacted in 2008. The removal of sand from wetland is also prohibited by the 2008 Act. However, there are two exceptions to this general rule. One is that the owner of the land can seek permission to convert paddy land and construct a residence, and the other is conversion of land for public purposes.

A Transfer of Property to Defeat Creditors Can Be Set Aside Terming it as Fraudulent

Posted inProperty & Succession
A transfer of property may be set aside terming it as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the Act”) if it was made with the intent to defeat, defraud or delay creditors. This applies in cases where the property transferor had any sustaining debt to be paid in instalments at the time of the transfer and he subsequently defaulted in payment, forcing the guarantor of the debt to make payment for borrower’s default. Then guarantor can seek setting aside of the property transfer and recovery of the money he paid against the transferor’s debt.