Being named in an FIR is frightening, and the fear is often out of proportion to the case: a business quarrel dressed up as cheating, a family dispute that has since been settled, an allegation that, read honestly, describes no offence at all. For these situations the law gives the High Court a special power. Quashing an FIR under section 528 BNSS lets the court end a criminal case before trial where continuing it would be an abuse of the process of the court. This guide explains what the power is, when the courts use it and when they refuse, how settlement fits in, what to file and when, and the traps created by the new numbering.

What Section 528 BNSS Says About Quashing an FIR

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 528 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice. This is the power relied upon when seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 528 BNSS, and its wording substantially follows section 482 of the old Code.

Three features of the provision shape everything that follows. First, it creates no new power; it saves one that already exists, which is why the courts describe it as inherent. Second, it is not a power to rewrite the Sanhita: it cannot be used to do something the Sanhita expressly forbids. Third, it is discretionary and is to be used sparingly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly described quashing as exceptional rather than routine.

The Numbering Trap

The renumbering has produced a genuine hazard for lay readers and for lawyers working from memory. Under the BNSS, section 482 deals with anticipatory bail, the subject of old section 438. Revision, old section 397, is now section 438 BNSS. Anyone searching for “section 482 BNSS quashing” will therefore find the wrong provision. An application to quash is made under section 528.

Old FIR, New Code: Which Section Applies?

Section 531 of the BNSS repeals the old Code but saves appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations pending on the date of commencement, which continue under the old Code. High Courts have taken different views on what “pending” means for a quashing petition filed after 1 July 2024 against an FIR registered before it: some look to the date of the FIR, others to the stage of the proceeding. The point is unsettled, and a petitioner whose FIR pre-dates the Sanhita should plead the alternative provisions together so that nothing turns on the label. In practice the substantive law is the same either way.

Does Earlier Section 482 CrPC Case Law Apply to Section 528 BNSS?

It is treated as doing so. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410, decided 28 March 2025, Oka and Bhuyan JJ.), the Supreme Court was dealing with an FIR registered after the BNSS came into force and examined the High Court’s refusal to quash it; the Court quashed the FIR, holding that there is no absolute rule against quashing at the investigation stage where the allegations disclose no offence, and the reports of the judgment describe the Court as treating section 528 BNSS as the equivalent of section 482 of the old Code. Later Supreme Court decisions in 2025 and 2026 apply the established quashing principles to petitions under section 528 without suggesting that the test has changed.

An academic reader should note the limit of this. The carry-over is a matter of consistent practice and of observations in decided cases; there is no provision in the BNSS that says earlier decisions on section 482 continue to govern. Because the text of the two sections is, in substance, the same, the assumption is sound, but it is an assumption, and a careful pleading cites the principle and the case, not the old section alone.

When Will the High Court Quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS?

The Bhajan Lal Categories

The starting point is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (decided 21 November 1990), in which the Supreme Court set out illustrative categories of cases in which the power may be exercised. In summary, a court may quash where: (1) the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value and accepted in full, disclose no offence; (2) the FIR and other material disclose no cognizable offence, so that the police had no basis to investigate without a Magistrate’s order; (3) the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected do not make out any offence; (4) the allegations disclose only a non-cognizable offence and there is no Magistrate’s order for investigation; (5) the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no reasonable person could reach a conclusion that there are grounds to proceed; (6) there is an express legal bar to the proceeding or a specific provision giving an effective remedy; or (7) the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or has been maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance. The Court called these illustrations, not a closed list or a code, and warned that the power must be used sparingly and with circumspection.

The Counterweight: No Mini-Trial

Balanced against Bhajan Lal is a long line of authority that the High Court must not try the case. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, identified three situations in which quashing is proper: where there is a legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceeding; where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute the offence alleged; and where there is no legal evidence, or the evidence clearly fails to prove the charge. In each, the court is not asked to decide whether the prosecution witnesses are reliable. The Supreme Court restated the principle in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh (Criminal Appeals 1025-1026 of 2023, decided 10 April 2023, M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar JJ.), setting aside a High Court order that had weighed evidence in a quashing petition and directing that the trial proceed.

When the Accused relies on Material Outside the FIR

Modern disputes often turn on documents, recordings or footage that the accused says destroy the allegation. The Supreme Court has been developing a structured approach to this. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (9 September 2025, Pardiwala and Mehta JJ.) the Court is reported to have framed a four-step inquiry: is the material relied on sound, reasonable and of undisputable character; does it refute the factual assertions in the complaint; can the prosecution not reasonably dispute it; and would continuing the trial then be an abuse of process. A later three-judge bench is reported to have applied the same inquiry under section 528 to quash proceedings where reliable footage showed the appellants had no part in the violence alleged. The approach narrows the door: the material must be so clear that no factual contest is possible, otherwise the matter goes to trial.

Mala Fides and Context

Where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR on the ground that the complaint is vexatious or malicious, the court looks beyond the allegations in isolation. The Supreme Court has held that the FIR must be read in light of its surrounding circumstances. In Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023 INSC 684, decided 8 August 2023, Gavai and Pardiwala JJ.), the Court examined the complaint in its broader context and applied the first, fifth and seventh Bhajan Lal categories, concerning the absence of an offence, inherent improbability and mala fides. The practical lesson for a petitioner is to place before the court the chronology and documents that explain the circumstances in which the complaint was filed, rather than relying on a bare denial.

Civil Disputes given a Criminal Colour

One of the common grounds for seeking quashing of an FIR is that the dispute is essentially civil, such as an unpaid price, a breach of contract or a property quarrel, and that criminal proceedings have been initiated as a means of pressure. However, the fact that a dispute has a civil or commercial background does not automatically justify quashing. The law here has two halves, and a balanced reader needs both.

On one side, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that criminal proceedings may not be used to recover money or to settle contractual scores. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 626, August 2024, Pardiwala and Misra JJ.) the Court explained that cheating and criminal breach of trust rest on different mental states and different ideas of entrustment, so they do not ordinarily co-exist on the same facts, and that where goods are sold on credit and the price is unpaid, the remedy is civil. Our article on criminal breach of trust and cheating under the BNS sets out that distinction in detail. In 2025 the Court quashed a group of FIRs arising from one property dispute, and in 2026 it quashed a prosecution for cheating where nothing showed dishonest intention at the time the contract was made.

On the other side, the same Court has said that a civil remedy does not bar a prosecution. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (decided 20 July 2006, Sema and Raveendran JJ.) it held that a commercial setting is no ground by itself to quash: the test is whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence, and the same facts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. A complaint that alleges dishonest intention from the start, with particulars, will survive; a complaint that merely alleges default will not. For the business reader, the lesson is that quashing depends on how the allegations are framed and on what the documents show, not on the label “commercial”.

Quashing an FIR on Settlement or Compromise

When the complainant and the accused reach a compromise, the parties often ask the High Court to quash even a non-compoundable offence. The Supreme Court allows this in limited circumstances, on the footing that the inherent power is distinct from the statutory list of compoundable offences. The main authorities are Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 (decided 4 October 2017) and, resolving an apparent conflict between the earlier cases, the three-judge decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688.

The principles drawn from them are these. The power can be used to quash offences of a predominantly private, civil, commercial or matrimonial character where the parties have genuinely settled and the chance of conviction is remote. It is not to be used for heinous and serious offences such as murder and rape, or offences with a serious public dimension, even where the victim has compromised, because they are offences against society. Offences by public servants in the discharge of duty and offences under special statutes with their own policy, such as the corruption statute, have been placed outside the settlement route. The court looks at the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of the case, the conduct and antecedents of the accused, and whether the settlement is voluntary. Quashing under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been permitted on a voluntary settlement where the offence was not caste-driven; any sign of compulsion defeats the relief.

Gujarat practitioners will recognise the procedure: settlement-based petitions are routinely listed as consent quashing matters, with the parties present or represented and the complainant’s consent recorded. The High Court may impose conditions, such as payment of costs or a deposit, and the Supreme Court has encouraged this where the settlement is not a complete answer to the public interest.

Limits and Cautions

No Blanket Interim Protection

A petitioner usually wants two things: to have the FIR quashed and to be protected meanwhile. The Supreme Court’s decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, 13 April 2021, three-judge bench) holds that interference with an investigation is exceptional and that a High Court should ordinarily not stay an investigation or direct that no coercive steps be taken. Interim orders need brief reasons showing the court has applied its mind to the case, and the Court cautioned against granting protection from arrest while refusing to quash, because that makes the quashing petition a form of anticipatory bail. Where arrest is feared, the proper companion is an application under section 482 BNSS, which is the anticipatory-bail provision.

Summoning is a Serious Step

A different point arises after the police report. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate ((1998) 5 SCC 749) holds that summoning an accused is a serious matter that requires the Magistrate to apply his mind to the material, and that the High Court may interfere under its inherent powers even though no revision was filed. A mechanical summoning order is therefore itself a ground to quash.

Gujarat Practice and Filing

Applications under section 528 in the Gujarat High Court are, in the orders we have reviewed, registered as criminal miscellaneous applications, and settlement petitions carry a consent-quashing label. Where a petitioner wishes to challenge an FIR as a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, the vehicle is a special criminal application. The two routes overlap in what they can achieve, but the Supreme Court has clarified the line at the stage of cognizance, discussed next. Whatever the label, the petition should annex the FIR, the complaint, any chargesheet, the material the petitioner relies on and, in a settlement case, the settlement and the complainant’s affidavit.

Timing: Before FIR, after Chargesheet, after Charge

A quashing petition may be filed at any stage, but the stage affects the odds. At the FIR stage the court is most reluctant to stop an investigation and will interfere only where no cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of the FIR. After the chargesheet is filed, the petition does not become infructuous: in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (decided 15 November 2018, Bobde and Nageswara Rao JJ.) the Supreme Court held that a petition pending when the chargesheet is filed can still be decided, since it would be anomalous to permit a challenge at the FIR stage but not afterwards. In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (order of 3 September 2025, Datta and Mishra JJ.) the Court explained that before cognizance an FIR or chargesheet can be challenged under Article 226, whereas once the Magistrate has taken cognizance, Article 226 is not available and section 528 is the route, which can reach the FIR, the chargesheet and the cognizance order together.

The alternatives matter too. A discharge application lies in a sessions trial under section 250 BNSS (old section 227) and, in a warrant case on a police report, under section 262 BNSS (old section 239); a revision against an order of the Magistrate lies under section 438 BNSS. The court will ask why these were not used where they were available, and the express-bar head of Bhajan Lal reflects the same reluctance. A short rule of thumb: if the defect is visible on the face of the FIR or the documents, quashing is appropriate; if proving it needs evidence, discharge or trial is the better stage.

A Practical Checklist

1. Read the FIR in full and list, element by element, what each offence alleged requires.
2. Decide which Bhajan Lal or R.P. Kapur ground is truly available, and be candid about it; a petition that asks the court to prefer the accused’s version will fail.
3. Assemble the documents the court can safely rely on without evidence: the contract, correspondence, bank records, undisputed orders, any recording whose authenticity is not in doubt.
4. If the matter has settled, obtain a signed settlement, an affidavit of the complainant and identification arrangements for the day of hearing.
5. Consider arrest risk separately and file for anticipatory bail where needed.
6. Check the stage: is there a chargesheet, has cognizance been taken, is a discharge application available?
7. Plead the provision in the alternative if the FIR pre-dates 1 July 2024.

Open Questions and Criticism

A fair account should record where the position is not settled. The first is the treatment of section 482 precedents under section 528, noted above. The second is the reported reference by a High Court of the question whether an FIR may be quashed under section 528 at all, in the light of an older larger-bench decision on the earlier section; the Supreme Court’s own decisions proceed on the footing that it may, and we have not been able to confirm any later development of that reference, so we treat it as a curiosity rather than a risk. The third is the boundary between a mini-trial and a legitimate look at undisputed material: the four-step approach helps, but each court applies “unimpeachable” with a different degree of strictness. The fourth is the tension, visible in the settlement cases, between party autonomy and the public interest in prosecuting serious offences. Critics of liberal quashing argue that it lets well-resourced accused buy peace and burdens the High Courts; defenders reply that it spares private litigants a trial that no one wishes to pursue. Both positions are reflected in the decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which section of the BNSS allows a High Court to quash an FIR?

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers and provides the basis for seeking quashing of an FIR. It corresponds to section 482 of the old Code.

Is section 482 BNSS the same as section 482 CrPC?

No. Section 482 BNSS now deals with anticipatory bail, the subject of old section 438. Quashing is under section 528.

Can an FIR be quashed after the chargesheet is filed?

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that a pending petition is not rendered infructuous by the filing of a chargesheet, and that once cognizance is taken, section 528 is the route that reaches the FIR, chargesheet and cognizance order together. The court will, however, be more reluctant once evidence has been collected.

Can a non-compoundable offence be quashed because the parties settled?

Sometimes. The Supreme Court permits it for offences of a predominantly private, civil, commercial or matrimonial character, and refuses it for heinous and serious offences and those with a public dimension.

Will the High Court stop the police or protect me from arrest while my petition is pending?

Not automatically. Interim protection is exceptional and needs reasons. Where arrest is feared, an application for anticipatory bail under section 482 BNSS is the usual companion.

Is a quashing petition a substitute for discharge or trial?

No. The High Court does not weigh evidence or hold a mini-trial. If the defence depends on disputed facts, the right stage is discharge or trial.

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sections 250, 262, 438, 482, 528 and 531 — India Code.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; AIR 1992 SC 604, decided 21 November 1990 — judgment.
• R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 — judgment.
• Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal 330 of 2021, 13 April 2021; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 — judgment.
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 — report on Laxmi Narayan.
• Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 684, 8 August 2023 — judgment.
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, Criminal Appeals 1025-1026 of 2023, 10 April 2023 — judgment.
• Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 626 — report.
• Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., 20 July 2006 — Supreme Court Reports (digital).
• Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749; AIR 1998 SC 128 — judgment.
• Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, 28 March 2025 — report.
• Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, order of 3 September 2025 — order.
• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided 15 November 2018 — report.
• Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 9 September 2025 — report.
• Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 25 October 2021 (settlement quashing, Atrocities Act) — report.

The post Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceeding under Section 528 BNSS: The Complete Guide appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.