The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against Surendra Khawse, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, filed by a colleague alleging rape under a false promise of marriage. The Court found the complaint was filed months after the alleged incident and likely motivated by revenge following workplace disputes. It emphasized that rape on false marriage promise requires proving deception from the start, and not every broken promise constitutes rape. The judgment highlights the Court’s role in preventing misuse of criminal law while ensuring genuine victims can seek justice, relying on Sections 376 IPC and inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

What Is the Main Legal Issue Addressed in This Case? The Karnataka High Court’s ruling…

The Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, ruled that nationwide consolidation of First Information Reports (FIRs) involving different witnesses, evidence, and local laws is impermissible. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to club multiple FIRs registered against Odela Satyam and others across various states in a multi-crore financial scam. The Court clarified that clubbing of FIRs is only permissible when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction. The judgment distinguished the case from Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), where FIRs were consolidated for a single televised statement. While rejecting pan-India consolidation, the Court permitted state-wise clubbing of FIRs where multiple cases existed within the same state. The Court emphasized that trials involving investor-witnesses from various locations would make nationwide clubbing impractical and rejected prayers seeking consolidation of future FIRs as “overambitious and outright illegal”.

The Bombay High Court, in Alka Shrirang Chavan v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale, reaffirmed the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that any property transfer made while a related suit is pending remains subject to the court’s final decree. The case involved subsequent purchasers resisting a decree for specific performance, but the Court ruled they were bound by the outcome since their purchase was pendente lite. The judgment underscores that buyers must conduct due diligence, as private transfers cannot override judicial authority.

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of staring at a woman during a flight, after both parties amicably settled the matter. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in Prashant Pareek v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr, noted that continuing proceedings under Section 509 IPC would serve no purpose since the dispute was resolved. The Court emphasized that in minor, non-violent cases, genuine settlements can be encouraged, while still recognizing that allegations of insulting a woman’s modesty are taken seriously under law.

The Madras High Court, in a habeas corpus case, held that same-sex couples can legally form a family even though same-sex marriage is not recognized in India. A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayan ruled that family cannot be confined to heterosexual marriage and includes “chosen families.” The court criticized police inaction in protecting the couple and stressed the duty of the state to safeguard LGBTQIA+ rights. It also acknowledged civil unions through “Deeds of Familial Association” and directed continued protection for the petitioners, reinforcing dignity, liberty, and inclusivity for sexual minorities.