Quashing of FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Erstwhile 482 CrPC or you may read it as Quashing of FIR under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 erstwhile 482 CrPC.
When one should file a Petition for quashing FIR under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 erstwhile 482 CrPC
If there is a prima facie case that reveals cheating , deceit or any fraudulent misrepresentation , it is not a bar for one to initiate a criminal case even though a civil remedy is already available .The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander: (2012) 9 SCC 460: Has clearly stated –
“27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.”
Filing of Chargesheet and cognizance order is required for filing quashing Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Delivered on: 03.12.2025 in an application filed U/S 482 No. 22266 OF 2024 Vishwa Bandhu Versus State of U.P. and 3 Others has in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875, held that “since the chargesheet and the cognizance has not been placed on record, FIR cannot be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 528 BNSS (old section 482 CrPC). Thus, in view of the above, present application is not maintainable.”
Invoke Section 528 of the BNSS to quash FIR/charge-sheet and cognizance order
The remedy available is under Section 528 BNSS when chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875 held that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken, but once cognizance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS erstwhile S. 482 CrPC to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognizance order.
Importance of nomenclature for filing quashing petitions
The Division bench of Justices Dipankar dutta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13578/2024 dated 15-10-2024 has held that –
18. The argument of nomenclature not being relevant, in view of the above discussions, cannot be accepted in all cases and is, thus, rejected.
19. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the Writ Petition as infructuous noticing that a judicial order had intervened between presentation of the Writ Petition and consideration thereof. No substantial question of law is involved and hence the special leave petition stands dismissed.
Guidance before filing a petition for quashing FIR Section 528 of BNSS 2023 erstwhile 482 CrPC.
In Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra: 2021 SCC OnLine 315, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as given under:
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
- xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
Understanding Quashing of FIR under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 erstwhile 482 CrPC
In the case of CBI v. Aryan Singh: 2023 SCC Online SC 379, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has gone into the issue of limited jurisdiction while exercising power to quash FIR and are only required to consider as to “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”
Conclusion for Quashing of FIR under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 erstwhile 482 CrPC
For any query relating to filing a quashing petition in High Court call us at 9873628941 or visit Best High Court lawyers at delhi and kolkata
also you may file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India against an order of the High Court declining to entertain your quashing petition . Visit Supreme Court Lawyers
