SCO.LR | Volume 4 | Issue 2

Last week, we launched our new initiative: the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). Read our first Issue here. 

Today, we release Volume 4, Issue 2 of SCO.LR, which covers judgements from 7 to 13 April 2025. 

Start here: look for our clear and unique citation format in addition to the Supreme Court’s neutral citations. Our format includes:

• The year of the judgment
• Name of the Law Report
• Volume Number
• Issue number (in brackets)
• Case number within that Volume [in square brackets]

Our key words/phrases telegraph the decision at a single glance. 

Stay tuned for more updates on how SCO.LR can support your research. Share feedback to join us to build the most accurate and accessible archive of the Indian Supreme Court!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR Vol 4 | Issue 2

7 April – 13 April 2025 

**********

Case No. 4(6)

Breach of Promise to Marry is Not Always Rape

Jaspal Singh Kaural v The State of NCT of Delhi

7 April 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 457 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(2)[6]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma 

The Supreme Court held that a consensual relationship, even if followed by a breach of a promise to marry, does not amount to rape under under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning. 

The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, was accused of engaging in sexual relations with the complainant under a promise to marry, which allegedly led her to divorce her husband. The Sessions Court discharged him for lack of a prima facie case, under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Delhi High Court reversed this decision and framed charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. Kaural challenged this order.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the Sessions Court’s order and terminated the criminal proceedings against Kaural. It emphasised that the complainant was fully aware of the nature of the relationship. Her continuing consensual involvement indicated that “there was never an element of force or deceit”. The Court reaffirmed the distinction between a false promise made to induce consent—which may constitute rape—and a breach of promise made in good faith, which does not attract criminal liability. 

Key words/phrases: Sections 376 IPC—false promise to marry—rape— good faith breach of promise to marry is not rape—Section 227 CrPC—rape charges dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Case No. 4(7)

Breach of Impossible Condition is not a Ground to Deny Insurance Claim

Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v M/S. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

7 April 

Citations: 2025 INSC 453 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(2)[7] 

Bench: Justices B. V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that insurance companies cannot reject a claim for breach of a condition that is impossible to meet.

Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. insured a voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata for a newly built barge named “Srijoy II” for one month. The insurer, New India Assurance, put in a clause that the “voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in,” and that it must depart in weather conditions below Beaufort Scale No. 4. Srijoy II took off in early June 2013, after obtaining appropriate permits. It ran aground the next day due to “bad weather and engine failure.” The insurance provider rejected the claim on the ground that Srijoy II set sail after the monsoon set in. The insurance surveyor and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld the rejection. 

The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s rejection. It reasoned that the insurance policy was taken for a period of one month, during which foul weather or monsoon would inevitably set in. It found that there was “absolutely no permutation and combination” of dates in which Srijoy II could have set sail to fulfil the condition, rendering it an impossible condition to fulfil.

Key words/phrases: Insurance claim—impossible condition in insurance contract — insurance policy redundant—insurer bound to cover claims 

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Case No. 4(8)

Preliminary Enquiry Not Necessary to Register FIR in Corruption Cases

State of Karnataka v Sri Channakeshava H.D.

8 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 471 |  2025 SCO.LR 4(2)[8]

Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases, while desirable, is not mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  

The Court was hearing appeals against a Karnataka High Court decision which had quashed an FIR against Sri Channakeshava H.D., a public servant accused of corruption. The High Court noted that the Superintendent of Police had not conducted a preliminary enquiry before approving the investigation and hence there was no application of mind.

Relying on Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), P. Sirajuddin v State of Madras (1970) and State of Karnataka v T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025), the Supreme Court clarified that while preliminary enquiries may be advisable in corruption cases, they are not mandatory unless specified by law. The Court found the approval granted to the FIR by the Superintendent of Police valid. The Court reiterated that an accused public servant has no inherent right to be heard before registration of an FIR. 

Key words/phrases: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—registration of FIR—corruption—public servant—preliminary enquiry not mandatory—accused has no inherent right to be heard

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Case No. 4(9)

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v Aditya Sarda

9 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 477 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(2)[9]

Bench: Justices B.M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale

The Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted to persons accused of serious economic fraud under Section 212(6) read along with Section 447 (Punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act, 2013. 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to individuals accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The SFIO was conducting an investigation into the allegation of fraud in the Adarsh Group. The SFIO had filed a criminal complaint alleging serious economic offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Anticipatory bail was granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail had disregarded the mandatory statutory conditions for bail in fraud cases. The High Court did not ensure that the Public Prosecutor’s opposition was properly considered. It also did not demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were not guilty of committing fraud. The judges also noted that the High Court had overlooked the accused’s conduct of evading legal processes under the Companies Act. The top court upheld the bail conditions. 

Key words/phrases: Section 212(6)—Section 447—Companies Act, 2013—grant of anticipatory bail in cases of fraud—no reasonable ground to believe innocence—accused shows history of misconduct—restrictive bail conditions upheld.

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Case No. 4(10)

Alteration of Rules for Public Appointment after Notification

Prabhjot Kaur v State of Punjab 

9 April 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 479 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(2)[10] 

Bench Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court reiterated that the rules of appointment to a civil service post in Punjab cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun. 

A June 2020 advertisement, the recruitment of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and Deputy Superintendent (Jails) (DSJ) posts was reserved for the Scheduled Caste (Sports) Category. This was rolled back to make way for the reservation of women in the posts. A new advertisement was issued in December 2020, which reserved the DSP post for women and the DSJ post for all candidates in the SC (Sports) Category. Later, an amendment to the Rules stated that the reservation for women would be applied as per a roster system, a mechanism used by the state government to implement the reservation within all categories. 

Meanwhile, Prabhjot Kaur stood first in the women’s category and was appointed as DSP. Chandandeep Singh, a man, was made DSJ. Singh approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that Kaur’s appointment violated the roster system. A single judge upheld her selection, but a Division Bench, on appeal, ordered a readjudication. The Chief Secretary had submitted that DSP was not meant for women’s reservation.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench order, reasoning that the roster system was not in practice at the time of the December 2020 advertisement. Moreover, Singh had initially participated in the appointment process without any protest. The Court reiterated the view upheld in K. Manjusree v State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), which observed that eligibility criteria advertised at the start of the recruitment cannot be amended. 

Key words/phrases: Civil Services Recruitment—horizontal reservation—no objection to reservation at start of recruitment process—eligibility criteria cannot be changed—changing the rules of the game mid-way—K. Manjusree judgement

Read the Judgement here.