Kerala HC: Low IQ Or Intellectual Disability Won't Make Accused Unfit For Trial If He Can Understand & Participate In Proceedings

 In the above circumstances, the mere fact that the accused suffers from intellectual disability, or that he has a low IQ, cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that he is incapable of making his defence. What is material is whether his condition renders him incapable of understanding the proceedings and of effectively communicating with his counsel for the purpose of making his defence. The findings recorded in the Medical Board's report indicate that the accused possesses the requisite capacity to understand the proceedings and put up his defence effectively. {Para 16}

17. This Court also finds that the learned trial Judge has considered the medical reports and the relevant aspects of the accused's functional capacity before concluding that he is fit to stand trial. The said finding being based on proper application of mind and on appreciation of the medical evidence, the same requires no interference.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1007 OF 2026

KAMAL RAJ  Vs  STATE OF KERALA 

PRESENT:  MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN

Dated: 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 

Citation: 2026:KER:75844

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Offence Of Sexual Intercourse On False Promise Of Marriage U/S 69 BNS Doesn't Apply To Women

Admittedly, the petitioner is a women and is arrayed as accused No.2 and the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint do not indicate any such act by the petitioner. {Para 11}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10660 OF 2026

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

 XXX Vs  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:53190

Print Page

Himachal Pradesh HC: Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023, primarily concerns the production of documents, electronic communications and communication devices, and cannot be invoked to compel the production of allegedly stolen pledged gold ornaments

Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS, as reproduced hereinabove, specifically deal with property suspected to have been stolen and production thereof can only be caused with the prior permission of the Court. Aforesaid provisions of law clearly reveals that where a police officer making an investigation has reason to believe that any property is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, is a result of a criminal activity or from the commission of any offence, he can make an application to the Court or the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence or commit for trial or try the case, for the attachment of such property. It is only after the directions issued by the competent Court of law that stolen property can be directed to be produced, that too before the competent Court of law. {Para 8}

9. Since in the case at hand, petitioner, being a Non- Banking Financial Company, had advanced loan against the pledged property, which is subsequently has been found to be stolen, interest of the petitioner is also required to be protected. While dealing with the application filed by the investigating agency, praying there to cause production of stolen property, Court concerned may have to issue notice to the person who is in possession of the property required to be produced and in that process such person i.e. petitioner herein shall get a chance to explain its position.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11709 of 2026

Bajaj Finance Limited  Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others 

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

Citation: 2026:HHC:37548.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Magistrate Must Examine Complainant, Witnesses Before Hearing Accused On Cognizance Of Private Complaint

Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offence - Pre-cognizance hearing - Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Present reference made to a larger bench to determine the stage of taking cognizance and the timing of the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing for the accused under the newly introduced proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS - Whether the examination of the complainant and witnesses is a step prior to taking cognizance, and at what stage the Magistrate must issue notice to the accused - Held, the introduction of the word "while" in Section 223(1) BNSS signifies that the examination of the complainant and witnesses is now an integral part of the process of taking cognizance, rather than a subsequent act. The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS confers a substantive, mandatory right upon the accused to be heard before cognizance is taken, a safeguard absent under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure. To ensure this right is meaningful and to prevent the accused from interfering with the recording of evidence, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses (where mandated) and form a prima facie opinion. Only thereafter should the Magistrate issue notice to the accused to provide an opportunity of being heard. The formal decision to take cognizance must follow this hearing. This interpretation harmonizes the statutory scheme, ensuring that the accused can point out threshold legal defects without prematurely obstructing the evidentiary process, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reference answered accordingly.

81. In view of our above discussion, we answer the questions referred to us by the learned Single Judge as under:

Question 1: What is the stage at which a Magistrate can be said to have taken "cognizance" of an offence, in the context of a private complaint, under the provisions of BNSS, and whether the expression "while taking cognizance" as employed in Section 223(1) of the BNSS implies that the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath is a step prior to taking of cognizance of offence?

Answer: The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only after examining the complainant and the witnesses present on oath, unless it is exempted by the statute, and giving an opportunity to the accused to be heard. Therefore, under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, the examination of the complainant and the witnesses present on oath, unless exempted, and hearing the accused, are steps prior to taking the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate.

Question 2: At what stage is the Magistrate required to issue notice to the accused in compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS - whether (a) upon perusal of the complaint but prior to recording of the statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, or (b) after recording such statements but before a formal decision on taking cognizance?

Answer: The Magistrate is required to issue a notice to the accused, in compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, after examining the complainant and the witnesses present on oath, unless exempted, and forming a prima facie opinion that the complaint does not deserve to be dismissed under Section 226 of the BNSS but cognizance may deserve to be taken of the offence. However, formal decision of taking cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only after granting an opportunity of being heard to the accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. 2551/2025 and Crl. M.C. 3169/2026

Decided On: 29.09.2026

Rita Bakshi Vs. Seema Bajaj and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.

Author: Navin Chawla, J.

 Citation: 2026:DHC:8460-DB, MANU/DE/7404/2026.

Print Page