List of Current Affairs

Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav, in Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026), quashed an FIR registered under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, holding that loud shouting between two persons on a public street, without more, does not disclose a cognizable offence. 

What was the Background of Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• An FIR was registered against the applicants with Pimpri Police Station under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. 
• The allegation in the FIR and chargesheet was that, under the influence of alcohol, the applicants were shouting loudly at each other on a public street, resulting in breach of public peace and disturbance to the public at large. 
• The applicants approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Disturbance to Third Parties: The Court noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbed public peace and held that on a bare reading of the charges, no cognizable offence was made out. 
• On the Scope of Section 85 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act: The Court observed that consumption of alcohol by itself could not constitute an offence under Section 85, and that improper and disorderly behaviour had to be culled out from the facts of each case; here, apart from the allegation of loud shouting, there was no allegation of obscenity, depravity, or moral offensiveness. 
• On the High Court's Power Under Section 528 BNSS: The Court referred to its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting that High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with malafide motives or to harass the accused, thereby avoiding procedural harassment. 
• On Imposition of Costs in Consent Quashing Matters: The Court observed that imposition of costs is warranted in consent quashing matters because of the wastage of public resources, consumption of valuable judicial time, and the need for deterrence against vexatious litigation, remarking that allowing such matters to proceed to trial would clog the legal system and add to pendency. 
• Allowing the application, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the FIR, directing the applicants to pay costs of ₹10,000. 

What is Section 528 of the BNSS? 

Corresponding Old Provision: Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 

Bare Act Text: 

Saving of inherent powers of High Court. — Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

What is Cognizable Offence? 

Definition: 

• A cognizable offence is a serious crime where a police officer can arrest the accused without a warrant and begin investigation without prior court permission. 

Statutory Definition — Section 2(g), BNSS: 

• "Cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. 

Key Features: 

• No Warrant Needed: Police can arrest a suspect directly based on reasonable suspicion. 
• No Court Permission Required: Officers can start investigating the matter immediately. 
• Mandatory FIR: Police must register an FIR upon receiving information about such offences. 

Common Examples: 

• Murder 
• Rape 
• Kidnapping 
• Dowry death

Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026), quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 BNS, setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had relied on Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana to decline quashing, and clarified the scope of the offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means as distinct from its erstwhile treatment under the IPC. 

What was the Background of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner and the complainant met on a digital platform, developed a friendship that turned into a love affair, and the petitioner expressed his desire to marry the complainant at their very first physical meeting. 
• The complainant permitted sexual intercourse in February 2024, and the two later stayed together at a hotel for two days in April 2024. 
• The petitioner subsequently resiled from his promise to marry, citing his mother's disapproval of the match, following which an FIR bearing No.11196030250292 dated 20.05.2025 was registered against him at Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat, under Section 69 BNS. 
• The petitioner's plea for quashing the FIR was rejected by the Gujarat High Court, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the High Court's Reliance on Deepak Gulati: The Court noted that Deepak Gulati required adequate evidence that the accused, at the initial stage itself, had no intention of keeping his promise to marry, and that failure to keep a promise for reasons unclear from the evidence does not always amount to misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC (now Section 28 BNS). It also noted that no provision corresponding to Section 69 BNS existed in the IPC when Deepak Gulati was decided. 
• On the Legal Position Under the IPC Regime: The Bench explained that under the IPC, a false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC (now Sections 63 and 28 of the BNS respectively), which required proof that consent was vitiated because the victim was made to believe in a promise which the accused, even at the time of making it, never intended to fulfil. 
• On the Scope of Section 69 BNS: The Court held that Section 69 BNS carves out fraudulent and deceitful conduct as a separate offence distinct from the graver offence of rape, while penalising such deceptive conduct. It clarified that the provision retains the same rigour as before, requiring that the promise be shown to have been made with an intention of never being fulfilled. 
• On the Absence of Deceit in the Facts: Examining the complaint, the Bench found no indication of deceitful conduct on the petitioner's part, holding that the statements in the complaint clearly indicated a consensual relationship rather than sexual intercourse induced through deceit. 
• On the First Instance of Physical Relationship: The Court specifically noted that the complaint did not even allege that the first instance of physical relations was conditioned upon a promise to marry, the complainant having merely stated that she "succumbed to his entreaties." 
• On the Effect of Parental Disapproval: The Bench held that the petitioner's subsequent refusal to marry, attributed to his mother's disapproval, did not amount to deceit and, if anything, indicated that the promise had been made in good faith. 
• Finding no basis to continue the proceedings, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner. 

What is Section 69 of the BNS? 

Corresponding Old Provision: Sections 375 and 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (read together) 

Bare Act Text: 

Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc. — Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 

Explanation. — "Deceitful means" shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing identity. 

BNSS Classification: