Section 528 BNSS — Inherent Powers of the High Court to Quash an FIR or Criminal Proceeding

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

The transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) renumbered many familiar provisions but largely preserved their substance. Section 528 BNSS is the direct successor to Section 482 CrPC and continues to be the High Court’s principal tool for terminating a criminal prosecution that ought never to have begun. It saves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to give effect to orders under the BNSS, to prevent abuse of process, and to secure the ends of justice — the same triad on which the Section 482 jurisprudence was built.

What Section 528 BNSS Says

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reads, in substance:

“Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Three observations flow from the text:

The section does not create a new power. It saves an inherent jurisdiction that the High Court has always possessed.
The power belongs to the High Court alone. A Sessions Court has revisional and discharge jurisdiction, but it cannot “quash” an FIR or proceeding.
The triggers are alternative. The court may act (i) to give effect to an order under the BNSS, (ii) to prevent abuse of process, or (iii) to secure the ends of justice.

What “Quashing” Means

A petition under Section 528 BNSS asks the High Court to declare that a criminal proceeding — an FIR, a chargesheet, a summoning order, or even a complaint case — should not continue. If the Court is satisfied that allowing the prosecution to run would be an abuse of process, it can terminate the matter at that stage rather than putting the accused through the full trial. Quashing is therefore a pre-trial constitutional remedy, distinct from acquittal after trial.

The Bhajan Lal Categories

The leading authority on when an FIR or complaint can be quashed remains State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, decided under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court there laid down seven illustrative categories in which the High Court could exercise its inherent power to quash:

Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence.
Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence that would justify investigation under the relevant provision of the Code (now Section 175 BNSS).
Where the allegations and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Where the allegations constitute only a non-cognizable offence and no order under Section 155(2) CrPC (now its BNSS equivalent) has been obtained.
Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed.
Where there is an express legal bar in the statute under which the proceeding is instituted (e.g., absence of statutory sanction).
Where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

These categories were illustrative, not exhaustive, and they continue to guide the exercise of Section 528 BNSS power.

At What Stage Can Quashing Be Sought?

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS can be invoked:

At the FIR stage, soon after registration, where the allegations on the face of them do not disclose any offence.
After the chargesheet is filed, where the material collected during investigation still does not make out a prima facie case.
After cognizance is taken or summons are issued, where the order is patently bad in law.
Mid-trial, in narrow circumstances, where continuation would itself be an abuse of process.

Indian Supreme Court rulings have clarified that the nascent stage of investigation is no bar to the exercise of Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction. If, on the face of the FIR, no offence is made out, the High Court can intervene without waiting for the investigation to conclude.

Quashing on the Basis of Compromise

A distinct line of authority — culminating in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 — permits quashing of certain offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties, even where the offence is non-compoundable under what is now Section 359 BNSS. The High Court’s inherent power extends to terminating private-dispute prosecutions (matrimonial offences, civil-flavoured disputes, commercial transactions, family arrangements) where continued prosecution serves no public interest.

The exception applies sparingly. Heinous offences against society — rape, murder, dacoity, offences under the POCSO Act, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the NDPS Act, the PMLA, and other special statutes — are generally not quashable on compromise, regardless of the willingness of the complainant.

Limits on Section 528 BNSS Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the inherent power is to be exercised “sparingly, carefully and with caution”. A few important limits:

No mini-trial at the quashing stage. The High Court cannot evaluate the merits of the prosecution evidence, weigh testimony, or determine credibility. Its inquiry is confined to whether the allegations on their face (and material on record) disclose an offence.
Disputed questions of fact are for trial. Where the dispute turns on a factual controversy, quashing is usually declined and the matter sent to trial.
Statutory bars must be respected. Where a special statute provides its own discharge or quashing mechanism (for example, under the NIA Act), the High Court’s Section 528 jurisdiction may not lie or may be circumscribed.
Plea of innocence is not a ground. A petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to assert that the accused is, in fact, innocent — that is the function of trial.
Concurrent proceedings. Where a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is also competent, the High Court typically prefers Section 528 BNSS for FIR quashing in non-constitutional matters.

Procedure for Filing a Quashing Petition

A quashing petition is filed in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the police station where the FIR is registered or the court that took cognizance. Typical contents include:

The FIR, chargesheet, and orders sought to be quashed.
A concise narration of facts.
The grounds on which quashing is sought (mapped to the Bhajan Lal categories or comparable principles).
Prayer for interim protection — typically a stay on arrest or further investigation — pending hearing.
Affidavits and supporting documents.

The State (and the complainant, if not the petitioner) is impleaded as a respondent. The Court may issue notice, call for the case diary, and, after hearing, either quash the proceeding, decline relief, or grant limited directions short of quashing.

A Note on Continuity from Section 482 CrPC

Because Section 528 BNSS reproduces the text and rationale of Section 482 CrPC verbatim, the entire body of case law built up under Section 482 — including Bhajan Lal, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh — continues to govern. The renumbering does not unsettle the substantive jurisprudence. A practitioner moving a Section 528 BNSS petition today will rely on the same precedents that governed Section 482 CrPC petitions for the past four decades.

Take-Away

Section 528 BNSS is a constitutional safety-valve. It exists so that the High Court can step in where a prosecution is patently malicious, where the allegations do not disclose any offence, or where continuation would shock the conscience of the court. It is not a substitute for trial, not an avenue to assert innocence on disputed facts, and not a back-door appeal. Used within its proper limits, it prevents abuse of the criminal process; used beyond them, it itself becomes an abuse. The provision deserves to be invoked with discipline and decided with the caution the Supreme Court has consistently demanded.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.