BNSS 379 – Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

379. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215.—
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 215.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,—
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 215.

Entire BNSS is here.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh Hugh Court at Jabalpur Bench held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offence under Section 215 B.N.S.S. once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. As per Section 379 B.N.S.S., the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing. However, in the present case, the Court has not made any enquiry, nor recorded any prima-facie satisfaction and has simply directed the police authorities to carry out an investigation and submit a report before the Court. Though the Court in its discretion could have directed the police authorities to investigate the matter and to furnish report before the Court, but the discretion to register FIR should not have been left at the discretion of the police authorities. It was for the Court to have applied its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report of the police authorities.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

Citations: [2026:MPHC-JBP:1337]

Other Sources:

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

393. Language and contents of judgment.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,—
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Sanhita the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Sanhita.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
(6) Every order under section 136 or sub-section (2) of section 157 and every final order made under section 144, section 164 or section 166 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

BNSS is here.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.

From Para 7,

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Citations: [2026:AHC:34917]

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/family-court-must-consider-whatsapp-chat-indicating-adultery-even-without-section-65-b-certificate-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-maintenance/

Index

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing the Nullity petition here, I filed a divorce petition before Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP, seeking Decree of Divorce of my marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

Now to serve the notice on the unavailable OP…

BNSS Sec 70 – Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

70. Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present.—
(1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons has been served, and a duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the manner provided by section 64 or section 66) by the person to whom it was delivered or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved.
(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and returned to the Court.
(3) All summons served through electronic communication under sections 64 to 71 (both inclusive) shall be considered as duly served and a copy of such summons shall be attested and kept as a proof of service of summons.

BNSS is here.

BNSS Sec 530 – Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

530. Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode.—
All trials, inquires and proceedings under this Sanhita, including—
(i) issuance, service and execution of summons and warrant;
(ii) examination of complainant and witnesses;
(iii) recording of evidence in inquiries and trials; and
(iv) all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding,
may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means.

BNSS is here.

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in a matrimonial-related criminal case.

The Court held that authorities cannot issue an LOC routinely. The Court emphasised that an LOC affects personal liberty and must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and the case did not fall within exceptional categories, the Court directed withdrawal of the LOC.

Before reproducing the relevant extracts, the Court examined the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory guidelines governing Look-Out Circulars.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgment:

“14. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights, it is the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One’s such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. [See; Article 21 Constitution of India].”
“14. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
“17. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator and that no Look-Out Circular shall be deleted automatically.”
“18. Sub-para L of the circular dt. 22.02.2021 indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India…”
“20. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted.”
“21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5th respondent shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024… forthwith.”

Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the authorities to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for travel permission in the pending criminal case.

Bagadi Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Posted on February 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. The observations made in both the decisions are similar and they go to show that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
11. In the instant case, Non-Bailable-Warrant was issued against the petitioner/A-4 as she was shown absconding in the charge sheet and it is not the case that proclamation proceedings were initiated and thus, the petitioner cannot at all be termed as a ‘proclaimed offender’ so as to disentitle her from getting the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus, as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since proclamation proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. are not initiated, the present petition is maintainable.

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Rashmi Raikhy and Anr Vs The State of NCT Delhi and Ors on 1 Feb 2018

Posted on February 19 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Delhi, quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioners registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC.

The Court held that issuance and continuation of an LOC in a matrimonial dispute involving Section 406 IPC was neither reasonable nor justified, especially when the petitioners had regularly appeared before the trial court, complied with bail conditions under Section 438 CrPC, and had not misused permission to travel abroad.

The Court emphasised that an LOC is a serious coercive measure and cannot be mechanically issued in matrimonial disputes where the accused are neither absconding nor involved in heinous offences.

The LOC was accordingly directed to be withdrawn.

The following paragraphs were instrumental in the Court’s decision to quash the Look Out Circular:

Para 4 “Record reveals that on several occasions permissions were sought by the petitioners to travel abroad and the said permissions were granted; there are no allegations of their misuse. Record further reveals that the petitioners are regularly appearing before the court concerned in the said proceedings.”
Para 5 “During this period since 2009/2010, the petitioners have suffered a lot due to issuance of LOC against them. Even after discharge order on 11.12.2017, LOC against the petitioner No.2 has not been rescinded.”
Para 7 “For the offence under Section 406 IPC, in matrimonial dispute, issuance of LOC against the petitioners till disposal of the case cannot be justified; the offence is not heinous in nature.”
Para 8 “In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy, E.V.R.Santosh Reddy and Rajeshwari vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and State represented by the Inspector of Police MANU/TN/2308/2013, Madras High Court noted various types of persons who could be included in the LOC:-
(i) Persons with Terrorists or Militant Links,
(ii) Belligerent Foreigners,
(iii) Foreigners previously noticed for violations of visa conditions.
(iv) Persons required by courts in criminal/civil cases who are absconding
(v) Absconding Offenders wanted by Police/CBI/Customs /Central excise/ Directorate of Rev. Intelligence/other agencies”
Para 9 “Apparently, the petitioners do not fall in any of the above categories. There are no allegations that petitioner No.1 ever absconded and did not participate in the criminal proceedings.”
Para 10 “Issuance of LOC is a serious matter as it contains full particulars of the individual which are sent throughout the world. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and due to subsequent development whereby the petitioner No.1 was charged only under Section 406 IPC, continuation of LOC against her can’t be considered reasonable and justified.”
Para 11 “In view of the above discussion, the concerned authorities are directed to withdraw the LOC order issued against the petitioners.”

Decision of the Court

Exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the withdrawal of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioners.

Rashmi Raikhy Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: [2018:DHC:785]

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular decisions is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

BNSS 379 – Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215

Shailendra Sharma and Ors Vs Indus Residency Pvt Ltd and Ors on 07 Jan 2026

BNSS Sec 393 – Language and contents of judgment

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Feb 2026

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Divorce petition)

BNSS Sec 70 – Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present

BNSS Sec 530 – Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Decision

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Rashmi Raikhy and Anr Vs The State of NCT Delhi and Ors on 1 Feb 2018