Introduction

The criminal justice system is designed to protect individuals, investigate offences, and punish those guilty of violating the law. However, the process of criminal prosecution is sometimes misused as a weapon of retaliation. A common example is the filing of a criminal complaint or First Information Report (FIR) merely to counter an earlier legal action initiated by the opposite party. Such retaliatory proceedings are commonly referred to by courts as "counterblast" litigation.

Although the expression "counterblast" does not appear in any statute such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Indian courts have repeatedly employed the term to describe proceedings instituted with the predominant object of harassing an opponent, frustrating pending litigation, or exerting undue pressure in an ongoing dispute.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that while every person has a legitimate right to invoke criminal law where a cognizable offence is disclosed, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to become instruments of private vengeance or coercion. Courts are therefore empowered to examine whether a complaint represents a genuine grievance or is merely a retaliatory measure intended to settle personal or commercial scores.

This article examines the concept of counterblast litigation, the legal principles governing such cases, and the leading judgments of the Supreme Court that have shaped the jurisprudence on abuse of criminal process.

What is a Counterblast?

A counterblast refers to a legal proceeding instituted primarily as a retaliatory response to an earlier legal action initiated by another party. The subsequent proceeding is not necessarily false merely because it is filed after the earlier litigation; however, its timing, surrounding circumstances, and the nature of the allegations may indicate that the real object is to intimidate, pressurise, or derail the earlier proceedings rather than to seek legitimate legal redress.

In legal practice, the expression is commonly used where—

• a criminal complaint is lodged immediately after receiving a legal notice;
• an FIR is registered after summons are issued in a cheque dishonour case;
• allegations of cheating or criminal breach of trust are raised following a commercial dispute;
• criminal proceedings are initiated after matrimonial litigation has commenced;
• complaints are filed after departmental or disciplinary proceedings have been instituted.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that criminal law should not become a weapon for arm-twisting or for converting purely civil disputes into criminal prosecutions.

Counterblast is Not Defined Under Any Statute

Neither the BNSS nor the BNS defines the expression "counterblast." It is a judicial expression that has evolved through precedent.

The courts generally employ the term where the circumstances reveal that—

• the complaint appears to have been filed only after another legal proceeding was initiated;
• the allegations appear inherently improbable or unsupported by contemporaneous material;
• criminal law is invoked to gain leverage in civil, commercial, matrimonial, or property disputes;
• the predominant object appears to be harassment rather than prosecution of an actual offence.

Importantly, the mere fact that a complaint is filed after another proceeding does not automatically make it a counterblast. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that each case must be examined on its own facts.

Counterblast vs Cross Case

The expressions cross-case and counterblast are often used interchangeably in practice, although they represent entirely different legal concepts.

For example, if two groups assault each other during a village dispute and each side lodges an FIR narrating its own version, both FIRs may be genuine cross-cases.

Conversely, if a person files a complaint of cheating only after receiving summons in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the later complaint may invite judicial scrutiny to determine whether it is merely a counterblast.

Thus, the distinction lies not in chronology alone but in the bona fides underlying the subsequent proceeding.

Principles Applied by Courts

While determining whether a proceeding is a counterblast, courts generally consider the following factors:

1. Timing of the Complaint

One of the most significant indicators is the timing of the complaint.

If allegations suddenly emerge immediately after—

• receipt of a legal notice,
• filing of a civil suit,
• institution of matrimonial proceedings,
• initiation of criminal prosecution,

the court may examine whether the complaint has been instituted only as a retaliatory measure. However, timing alone is never decisive.

2. Nature of the Dispute

Where the dispute is predominantly civil or commercial in character, courts carefully scrutinise attempts to introduce criminal allegations.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that criminal law cannot be used as a substitute for civil remedies.

3. Delay in Lodging the Complaint

An unexplained delay may indicate that the complaint was not prompted by the commission of an offence but by subsequent developments in the relationship between the parties.

4. Documentary Evidence

Courts frequently compare—

• correspondence,
• agreements,
• legal notices,
• emails,
• financial records,
• earlier pleadings,

to determine whether the criminal allegations are consistent with the contemporaneous record.

5. Ingredients of the Offence

Even where retaliation is alleged, the court first examines whether the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.

If the allegations satisfy the statutory requirements of the offence, investigation ordinarily proceeds notwithstanding allegations of mala fides.

Inherent Powers of the High Court

The High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.

These powers are exercised sparingly and with great caution.

The Supreme Court has consistently observed that the High Court does not conduct a mini-trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. Nevertheless, where the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide intention or has been instituted solely to wreak vengeance, interference may be justified.

Leading Supreme Court Judgments

1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Citation: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Facts

The respondent challenged criminal proceedings initiated against him alleging misuse of official position. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which was called upon to determine the scope of the High Court's inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.

Although the case did not directly concern a counterblast complaint, it became the foundational authority governing abuse of criminal process.

Issues

1.  When can criminal proceedings be quashed at the threshold?

2.  What circumstances justify interference by the High Court?

Decision

The Supreme Court recognised that criminal proceedings should ordinarily continue where an offence is disclosed. At the same time, it acknowledged that exceptional cases require judicial intervention to prevent abuse of process.

The Court formulated the celebrated seven illustrative categories in which criminal proceedings may be quashed.

One of these categories specifically covers cases where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention or have been instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised where criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the judicial process, including proceedings initiated maliciously for private vengeance.

Legal Significance

This judgment remains the principal authority cited whenever parties contend that an FIR or complaint is merely a counterblast to earlier litigation. Virtually every petition seeking quashing of retaliatory criminal proceedings relies upon the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal.

2. G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: (2000) 2 SCC 636

Facts

The dispute arose from financial transactions between the parties. Civil remedies and recovery proceedings were already available. Despite the essentially commercial nature of the dispute, criminal proceedings alleging cheating and other offences were initiated.

The accused contended that the criminal prosecution had been launched only to pressurise them into settling civil claims.

Issues

1.  Can criminal law be invoked for recovery of money arising from commercial transactions?

2.  Should criminal proceedings continue where the dispute is essentially civil?

Decision

The Supreme Court observed that criminal law should not be used as an instrument of coercion in commercial disputes.

The Court found that the allegations primarily related to civil liability and that criminal prosecution could not be permitted merely to exert pressure upon the opposite party.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the substance of the dispute is civil and the criminal process is invoked only to compel settlement or recovery, the proceedings may amount to abuse of process.

Legal Significance

The judgment is frequently relied upon where complaints alleging cheating are filed only after civil or commercial disputes have arisen. It demonstrates that courts will examine the real nature of the dispute rather than merely the language of the complaint.

3. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate

Citation: (1998) 5 SCC 749

Facts

Criminal complaints were instituted against company officials alleging violations of food safety laws. The accused challenged the summoning order, contending that the criminal proceedings had been initiated without adequate judicial scrutiny.

Issues

1.  What duty does a Magistrate perform before issuing process?

2.  Can criminal law be casually invoked?

Decision

The Supreme Court emphasised that summoning an accused is a serious judicial act.

Before issuing process, the Magistrate must carefully evaluate whether sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

Criminal prosecution should not be permitted to become a matter of routine. Courts must ensure that criminal law is not used to harass individuals through frivolous complaints.

Legal Significance

Although not directly involving a counterblast, this judgment has become one of the strongest safeguards against misuse of criminal proceedings and is routinely cited in petitions alleging retaliatory prosecution.

4. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 866

Facts

The appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of judicial process.

Issues

Whether the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings before trial.

Decision

The Supreme Court recognised that inherent jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional situations where continuation of prosecution would be unjust.

The Court identified circumstances such as legal bars to prosecution, absence of essential ingredients of the offence, and cases where allegations, even if accepted as true, fail to disclose an offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent misuse of judicial process and to secure the ends of justice.

Legal Significance

This judgment laid the foundation for the later principles elaborated in Bhajan Lal and remains a cornerstone of Indian criminal procedural jurisprudence.

5. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy

Citation: (1977) 2 SCC 699

Facts

The accused challenged criminal proceedings on the ground that the evidence collected during investigation did not justify continuation of prosecution.

Issues

Can the High Court intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose?

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses wide inherent powers to prevent abuse of judicial process.

Where continuation of prosecution would result in injustice rather than justice, judicial intervention becomes necessary.

Ratio Decidendi

The object of criminal courts is to advance justice rather than to permit misuse of legal procedure.

Legal Significance

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings instituted for collateral purposes—including retaliatory litigation—may be quashed where continuation would amount to abuse of process.

6. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.

Citation: (2006) 6 SCC 736

Facts

Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) entered into agreements with NEPC India Ltd. concerning aviation fuel and related commercial transactions. Disputes subsequently arose regarding the ownership and removal of aircraft. Alongside civil proceedings, criminal complaints alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and other offences were initiated.

The accused contended that the criminal proceedings were instituted merely to gain an advantage in a commercial dispute.

Issues

1.  Whether criminal prosecution is maintainable where civil remedies are also available.

2.  Whether commercial disputes can simultaneously constitute criminal offences.

3.  Whether criminal law was being misused to exert pressure.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

However, the Court strongly cautioned that parties increasingly attempt to convert purely civil disputes into criminal prosecutions for the purpose of obtaining quicker settlements or exerting pressure upon the opposite party.

The Court observed that criminal courts must remain vigilant against such misuse.

Ratio Decidendi

A transaction may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. Nevertheless, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted where the allegations merely disclose breach of contract or other civil disputes without satisfying the ingredients of the alleged criminal offence.

Legal Significance

This judgment is one of the most frequently cited authorities in cases alleging that criminal proceedings have been filed as a counterblast to civil or commercial litigation. It recognizes that although parallel remedies may coexist, criminal law should never become a bargaining tool.

7. Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

Citation: (2009) 8 SCC 751

Facts

The dispute concerned execution of sale deeds relating to property. Criminal proceedings alleging forgery, cheating and other offences were initiated against the accused.

The appellants argued that the dispute essentially related to title and ownership of property and therefore raised civil questions rather than criminal liability.

Issues

1.  Whether execution of disputed sale deeds necessarily constitutes forgery.

2.  Whether criminal prosecution was justified on the facts.

Decision

The Supreme Court carefully analysed the statutory ingredients of forgery and cheating.

The Court concluded that merely executing a sale deed claiming ownership over property does not automatically amount to forgery.

The dispute primarily concerned civil rights regarding ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

Criminal liability cannot be inferred merely because parties disagree regarding ownership or contractual rights.

Courts must distinguish between:

• breach of civil obligations; and
• commission of criminal offences.

Legal Significance

This decision is frequently relied upon where criminal complaints alleging cheating or forgery are filed after property disputes or civil suits.

8. Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Citation: (2015) 8 SCC 293

Facts

The dispute arose from commercial transactions between business entities.

After disputes regarding financial obligations emerged, criminal complaints alleging cheating and conspiracy were filed.

The accused argued that the dispute was contractual in nature and that criminal proceedings were initiated only to compel settlement.

Issues

1.  Whether breach of contractual obligations amounts to cheating.

2.  Whether criminal proceedings should continue where dishonest intention at inception is absent.

Decision

The Supreme Court reiterated that every breach of contract does not amount to cheating.

For an offence under Section 420 IPC (now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), dishonest intention must exist from the very beginning of the transaction.

Subsequent failure to fulfil contractual obligations does not automatically establish criminal liability.

Ratio Decidendi

Dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is an essential ingredient of cheating.

Criminal law cannot be invoked merely because contractual obligations remain unperformed.

Legal Significance

The judgment significantly limits attempts to convert commercial disputes into criminal prosecutions merely to obtain leverage.

9. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: (2021) 19 SCC 401

Facts

The High Court stayed investigation immediately after registration of an FIR.

The matter reached the Supreme Court to determine the extent of judicial interference during investigation.

Issues

1.  When can High Courts quash criminal proceedings?

2.  Can investigation ordinarily be stayed at the initial stage?

Decision

The Supreme Court emphasised that police possess statutory authority to investigate cognizable offences.

Courts should ordinarily permit investigation to continue unless the case falls within recognised exceptions such as those laid down in Bhajan Lal.

The Court warned that premature interference may obstruct legitimate investigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional cases where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Legal Significance

Although parties frequently allege that an FIR is a counterblast, Neeharika Infrastructure reminds courts that allegations of mala fides alone are insufficient.

If the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should ordinarily proceed.

10. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre

Citation: (1988) 1 SCC 692

Facts

The dispute arose among members of a former royal family concerning management of trust property and financial affairs.

Criminal proceedings were initiated alongside civil disputes.

Issues

1.  Whether continuation of criminal prosecution would serve the interests of justice.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings should not continue where the chances of conviction are extremely remote and continuation would amount to unnecessary harassment.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the predominant object of prosecution appears to be private vengeance rather than administration of criminal justice, courts may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings.

Legal Significance

The judgment is regularly cited in petitions alleging retaliatory criminal complaints arising out of family or property disputes.

Counterblast in Matrimonial Litigation

Matrimonial disputes frequently generate allegations of retaliatory litigation.

For example—

• the husband files divorce proceedings;
• thereafter criminal complaints alleging cruelty, cheating or breach of trust are instituted;

or

• the wife initiates proceedings for maintenance or domestic violence;
• subsequently the husband lodges criminal complaints against her and her family.

The Supreme Court has consistently observed that every matrimonial complaint must be examined independently.

The mere fact that criminal proceedings follow matrimonial litigation does not establish mala fides.

However, where surrounding circumstances indicate that criminal law has been invoked solely as retaliation, High Courts may exercise their inherent jurisdiction.

Counterblast in Cheque Dishonour Cases

A recurring pattern noticed by courts involves:

• issuance of a statutory demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act;
• filing of a complaint under Section 138;
• immediate registration of an FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust or forgery by the drawer.

Courts closely examine whether:

• dishonest intention existed from the inception;
• the complaint discloses independent criminal offences;
• the allegations merely seek to avoid liability under cheque dishonour proceedings.

Where the complaint merely disputes liability under a commercial transaction, courts have often viewed the subsequent prosecution with caution.

Counterblast in Property Disputes

Property disputes frequently witness criminal allegations concerning:

• forgery;
• trespass;
• cheating;
• criminal intimidation.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that title disputes should ordinarily be resolved by civil courts.

Criminal prosecution becomes justified only where the allegations independently satisfy the ingredients of the penal offence.

Accordingly, courts carefully scrutinise criminal complaints filed immediately after institution of partition suits, specific performance suits or injunction proceedings.

Counterblast in Commercial Transactions

Commercial disputes account for a substantial portion of alleged counterblast litigation.

Examples include:

• partnership disputes;
• shareholder disputes;
• loan transactions;
• contractual breaches;
• supply agreements;
• franchise disputes.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly discouraged attempts to invoke criminal law merely to accelerate recovery of money or force settlement.

The guiding principle remains simple: “Every breach of contract is not a criminal offence.”

Practical Indicators of Counterblast Litigation

Courts frequently examine the following circumstances:

• Complaint filed immediately after receiving a legal notice.
• FIR lodged only after summons are issued.
• Earlier civil proceedings already pending.
• Unexplained delay in approaching police.
• No contemporaneous documents supporting allegations.
• Criminal allegations substantially mirror allegations made in pending civil litigation.
• Apparent attempt to avoid contractual liability.
• Multiple proceedings initiated simultaneously before different forums.

None of these circumstances is individually decisive.

Courts evaluate the cumulative effect of all surrounding circumstances.

Important Principles Emerging from the Supreme Court Decisions

The leading decisions discussed in Parts I and II establish the following propositions:

1.  Criminal law cannot be used for settling civil scores.

2.  Availability of a civil remedy does not automatically bar criminal prosecution.

3.  Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating.

4.  Dishonest intention must ordinarily exist from the inception of the transaction.

5.  Property disputes do not automatically amount to criminal offences.

6.  Timing of the complaint is relevant but not conclusive.

7.  Mala fide intention alone is insufficient if the complaint otherwise discloses a cognizable offence.

8.  High Courts possess inherent powers to prevent abuse of process but must exercise such powers sparingly.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions indicate that the plea of "counterblast" has become a common defence in petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. However, the Court has consistently clarified that merely alleging that an FIR is retaliatory is not sufficient. The decisive question remains whether the complaint, on its face, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

1. Property Dispute: Complaint Filed After Civil Suit

In a 2025 decision, the Supreme Court considered a case where criminal proceedings were initiated after the institution of a civil suit concerning the same property. The appellants argued that the complaint was nothing but a counterblast intended to pressurise them after they had approached the civil court.

The Court reiterated that pendency of a civil suit is not, by itself, a ground to quash criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, after examining the peculiar facts, it found that the criminal complaint had been lodged only after the civil litigation commenced and appeared to be an attempt to give a criminal colour to an ongoing property dispute. Continuing the prosecution, in those circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings were quashed. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Principle

The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution. However, where the criminal complaint is evidently instituted only after the civil proceedings and appears to have been filed to exert pressure, the High Court or the Supreme Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

2. Matrimonial Proceedings: Divorce Petition Followed by FIR

In another 2025 judgment, the husband instituted divorce proceedings. Shortly after the wife received summons in the divorce case, she lodged an FIR alleging cruelty and related offences. The husband sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the FIR was merely a counterblast to the divorce petition.

The Supreme Court declined to accept this contention merely because the FIR followed the divorce proceedings. It observed that allegations of mental cruelty and dowry-related harassment had been made in the complaint and that the truthfulness of those allegations was a matter for investigation and trial.

The Court emphasised that chronology alone cannot determine mala fides. Even where a complaint follows an earlier legal proceeding, it cannot be quashed if it discloses the ingredients of a cognizable offence.

Legal Principle

A complaint filed after matrimonial litigation is not automatically a counterblast. Courts must examine the substance of the allegations rather than merely the sequence of events.

3. Banking and Commercial Disputes

In another 2025 case involving banking transactions, the respondent argued that the FIR lodged against the bank was only a retaliatory measure after action had been taken against him for allegedly pledging spurious gold ornaments. The High Court accepted the plea and quashed the FIR, treating it as a counterblast.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court closely examined the allegations and reiterated that the label of "counterblast" cannot replace a legal analysis of the complaint. The Court stressed that the existence of earlier proceedings is only one relevant circumstance; the primary inquiry remains whether the complaint itself discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and whether the statutory requirements for criminal prosecution are satisfied.

Legal Principle

The plea of counterblast is only one factor in the overall analysis. Courts must independently determine whether the complaint satisfies the ingredients of the alleged offences.

Emerging Trend in Recent Supreme Court Decisions

A reading of the recent decisions reveals a consistent judicial approach:

• The expression "counterblast" is descriptive and not a legal defence recognised by statute.
• The filing of an FIR after civil, commercial, matrimonial, or disciplinary proceedings does not automatically establish mala fides.
• Courts examine the timing, surrounding circumstances, documentary record, and statutory ingredients of the alleged offence.
• If the complaint discloses a prima facie offence, investigation should ordinarily proceed notwithstanding allegations of retaliation.
• Conversely, where the criminal process is plainly invoked as a tool of coercion or private vengeance, courts may quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

These decisions reaffirm that the Supreme Court continues to strike a careful balance between protecting genuine complainants and preventing the misuse of criminal law as a weapon of retaliation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that criminal law is intended to punish genuine offences and not to provide litigants with a weapon of retaliation. Although courts do not reject a complaint merely because it follows earlier litigation, they carefully scrutinise the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the prosecution is bona fide or constitutes an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court has further maintained a balanced approach while dealing with allegations of counterblast litigation. On one hand, courts recognise that criminal proceedings should not become instruments of harassment or coercion in civil, commercial, matrimonial or property disputes. On the other hand, they have equally cautioned that a complaint cannot be quashed merely because it was filed after another legal proceeding.

The decisive question is not when the complaint was filed, but whether it genuinely discloses the commission of a criminal offence. If the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent and the surrounding circumstances reveal that the prosecution has been initiated solely to retaliate against earlier litigation, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Thus, the jurisprudence on counterblast litigation reflects the Supreme Court's continuing effort to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system by ensuring that criminal law serves its true purpose—punishing genuine offenders—while preventing its misuse as a weapon of private vengeance.

Bibliography

A. Statutes

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for historical reference).
5. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for historical reference).
6. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (where relevant).

B. Supreme Court Judgments

1. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866.
2. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699.
3. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692.
4. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
5. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.
6. G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 636.
7. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168.
8. S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
9. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736.
10. Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.
11. Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.
12. Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293.
13. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401.

C. Recent Supreme Court Decisions

1. Supreme Court judgment dated 24 February 2025 dealing with quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a property dispute and allegations of retaliatory prosecution.
2. Supreme Court judgment dated 16 April 2025 concerning the plea that an FIR lodged after matrimonial proceedings was merely a counterblast.
3. Supreme Court judgment dated 5 June 2025 examining the "counterblast" argument in the context of banking and commercial transactions.

D. Books

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (latest edition, LexisNexis).
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (latest edition, LexisNexis).
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (latest edition, LexisNexis).
4. C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure (Eastern Book Company, latest edition).
5. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure (Eastern Book Company, latest edition).
6. Sarkar, Law of Criminal Procedure (LexisNexis, latest edition).

E. Online Resources

1. Supreme Court of India, Judgments Information System.
2. SCC Online.
3. Manupatra.
4. Indian Kanoon.
5. LiveLaw.
6. Bar and Bench.

Share this News