India: Criminal Law

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Dineshchand Surana v UCO Bank, 2026 INSC 579 acting through a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, examined the interplay between the moratorium provisions under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

India’s digital payments landscape / ecosystem has grown exponentially and at a pace that regulators struggled to match. The rules governing automatic recurring charges remained scattered across multiple directives issued at different times.

To put it simply, the question at hand is whether the ED can proceed only against property linked to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, or whether it can also move against untainted assets of corresponding value where the original tainted property is no longer traceable.

DSK Legal's White-Collar Crime & Corporate Investigations Newsletter examines critical judicial pronouncements and evolving standards across India's Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, Criminal Procedure Code, and Negotiable Instruments Act. This edition provides essential analysis for businesses and individuals navigating the complexities of financial crime, regulatory enforcement, and corporate compliance in an increasingly stringent legal landscape.

Section 105 of BNS renders every compliance manual immediately irrelevant. Device seizure signals a criminal investigation, not a regulatory inquiry. The Board’s paperwork does not address...

The MCA Data across the last 5 financial years consistently shows that approximately 28,000 criminal prosecutions under the Companies Act, 2013 remain pending at the end...

This article examines when a supplementary chargesheet or further report or subsequent complaint is a legitimate continuation of the investigation, and when it becomes a second attempt to improve the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court examined whether the use of abusive language constitutes obscenity under Indian Penal Code provisions, focusing on the distinction between vulgar speech and legally obscene material. The ruling establishes critical precedent on when offensive language crosses into criminal obscenity, requiring sexual connotation rather than mere vulgarity.

The relationship between compromise settlements and the mandatory registration of FIRs continues to generate significant debate within Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring question before courts is whether an attempted settlement between parties can dilute or postpone the statutory obligation of the police to register an FIR where information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence.