The Supreme Court quashed a s.498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act prosecution against a husband's brother and unmarried sister, holding that relatives cannot be dragged into a matrimonial dispute on a casual reference to their names without specific allegations of active involvement. The decision deprecates the practice of roping in the entire household and treats it as an abuse of process.
The Supreme Court held in 2026 that the IBC cannot recover a money decree from a solvent company; using it that way is an abuse of process — costs of ₹5 lakh.
On 8 January 2024, a two-judge bench quashed the premature release of eleven convicts, holding that Gujarat was not the appropriate Government to grant remission under Section 432(7) CrPC and that the order directing it to act had been obtained by suppression of material facts.
On 13 February 2025, a two-judge bench held that the award of interest under Section 34 CPC is an equitable, discretionary relief and denied interest on a refunded principal because the claimant had engaged in forum shopping and procedural abuse.
On 6 April 2026, a three-judge bench held that the inherent powers under section 528 BNSS can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings where unimpeachable material displaces the prosecution's factual foundation; the Bhajan Lal framework carries through unbroken into the BNSS era.
On 2 April 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held in Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash that a subsequent application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — based on the same cause of action as one already abandoned — is barred on the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A digest of the ruling, the facts that drove it, the doctrinal extension into the appointment stage, and what it tells practitioners about strategy and abandonment.