LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

ABCD v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2019 INSC 1347Decided 10 Dec 2019
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2018
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit · Justice Indu Malhotra

Background

The petitioner, whose identity was withheld under Section 228A IPC (which protects the identity of victims in sexual offence cases), had filed an FIR alleging that an IPS officer sexually assaulted her at a Delhi hotel after she became dizzy from chocolates he gave her, following an online friendship and talk of marriage. Separately, the officer's mother filed a counter-FIR alleging the petitioner's family had extorted money by threatening to file false rape charges. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking to have both investigations transferred from Delhi Police to an independent central agency, alleging the officer's position in the police service compromised a fair probe, and also sought personal protection.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the investigation into the petitioner's FIR had in fact been conducted properly by a Special Investigation Team, a chargesheet had been filed, and the accused officer's mobile phones had been seized and forensically analysed with his cooperation, so there was no basis to transfer the case to a central agency. The Court also declined to transfer the counter-FIR investigation, noting the petitioner already had anticipatory bail protection and a pending quashing petition before the High Court. Separately, the Court noted that during the case the petitioner had falsely claimed in a sworn statement that she was struck by a car driven by persons connected to the accused officer, when CCTV footage showed she was merely brushed by a hand-cart ("thela"): a discrepancy serious enough that the Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner herself and directed her to appear in person to explain why action should not be taken for making a false statement on oath. The writ petition itself was disposed of, declining all the transfer and other mandamus reliefs sought.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not transfer a police investigation to a different agency merely because the accused belongs to the police service, if the actual investigation record shows it was conducted properly and fairly; and making false statements on oath to a court, even in service of a genuine grievance, can itself expose a litigant to contempt-of-court proceedings.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case