Welcome to today’s Daily Legal Digest India. We pick a handful of recent court rulings and legal developments and explain them in plain English, so you can see how the law is being applied without wading through court documents. Today’s items are drawn mainly from Supreme Court reports dated 5 October 2026.
Supreme Court quashes a “false promise of marriage” case after a three-year consensual relationship
In Martanda Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside criminal proceedings against a man accused of promising marriage and then backing out. The Court observed that a relationship lasting three years, entered into willingly by both sides, does not show that consent was obtained by coercion or misrepresentation, and that a criminal case should not be used as leverage to force a marriage.
Why it matters: Every case turns on its own facts, but the ruling is a reminder that courts look closely at the nature of the relationship before allowing such a prosecution to continue. If you are facing an FIR you believe is unfounded, our page on criminal law explains how such cases are handled.
Source: LiveLaw
NDPS case cannot be thrown out only because a co-accused’s statement was relied upon
In State of Karnataka v. Sadiq Pasha, the Supreme Court (Justices Pardiwala and Chandran) held that a drug-law prosecution should not be quashed at the threshold merely because it draws on a disclosure made by a co-accused. The Court noted that such statements, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot on their own support a conviction, but they can give investigators a lead to collect further evidence. Whether the charges stand has to be judged on the full chargesheet and the material gathered.
Why it matters: For anyone caught up in an NDPS case, the practical point is that the defence usually has to engage with the whole body of evidence, not just point to one weak statement. Bail strategy in such matters is covered on our bail and anticipatory bail page.
Source: LiveLaw
“Investigating officer must not create evidence”: acquittal in double murder case upheld
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the acquittal of an accused in a double murder case. The Court found that two witnesses, a taxi driver and a hotel employee, appeared to have been “set up” to complete a chain of circumstances, and said the role of an investigating officer is to collect evidence, not to create it.
Why it matters: It underlines that a conviction must rest on credible, properly explained evidence. Where a case is built on circumstantial links, courts will test each link carefully.
Source: LiveLaw
Supreme Court presses actor in cheque dishonour cases to deposit court-ordered amount
As reported on 5 October, the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with actor Rajpal Yadav, who has been convicted in seven cheque dishonour cases, for not depositing the Rs 5 crore it had directed him to pay. The Court granted one final extension until the next day.
Why it matters: A bounced cheque is a criminal offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and courts can insist on money being deposited as a condition for relief during appeal. If you have received, or issued, a bounced cheque, see our cheque bounce page for how the process works.
Source: LiveLaw Breaking News Alerts, 5 October 2026
Have a question about a similar situation? You are welcome to get in touch with our office.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.