Can FIR & Consequential Investigation Be Quashed U/S.528 BNSS ?: Allahabad HC Refers Issue To 9-Judge Bench

Tulip Kanth

28 May 2025 2:00 PM IST

The Allahabad High Court showed its respectful disagreement with the Full Bench judgement in Ramlal Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. & Others (1989) wherein it was observed that FIR or consequential investigation cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 BNSS).

The Allahabad High Court has referred the issue of quashing of an FIR and its consequential investigation under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) to a Larger Bench consisting of nine Judges.

The High Court showed its respectful disagreement with the Full Bench judgement in Ramlal Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. & Others (1989) wherein it was observed that FIR or consequential investigation cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 BNSS).

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said, “Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasized in the cases of Shanker Raju (supra) and Mishri Lal (supra) the court is inclined to refer this matter to a Larger Bench comprising nine judges”.

The Bench thus framed the question as, “Can an FIR and its consequential investigation be quashed under the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) if the conditions outlined in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra) and paragraph 33 of Necharika Infrastructure (supra) are fulfilled?”

Advocate Dharmendra Vaish represented the Applicant, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The application before the High Court was initially filed challenging the order of the CJM, Chitrakoot, u/s 175(3) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) by which the police were directed to register the first information report. Subsequently, an amendment was also made with the permission of the court seeking the quashing of consequential FIR u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

A preliminary objection was raised by the AGA that in view of the Full Bench judgement of Seven Judge's Bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1989), application u/s 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue

The issue that arose for determination was whether, given the subsequent judgement of the Apex Court, an FIR can be challenged u/s 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) and whether the Full Bench judgement of Ramlal Yadav (supra) is deemed to be overruled by the subsequent judgements of the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that when the FIR does not disclose any offence and police still continue investigation, in such a case, the only power available in Cr.P.C. to the High Court is its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, the Bench held that the scope of interference during the investigation has been enlarged by the subsequent judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana And Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others (1992). The Bench noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court had permitted the High Court to exercise its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 BNSS) or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR or consequential investigation to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Therein, the judgment of the Privy Council in The King Emperor Vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (1944) was also considered by the Apex Court.

“Therefore, it is clear from the above judgements of Apex Court that the High Court, in the exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only case where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra)”, it said.

The Bench further explained that it is the mandate of Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 174(2) of BNSS) that police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, if the police continues to investigate an FIR, which does not disclose a cognizable offence, then it would be against the mandate of Cr.P.C./BNSS and in such a case, the court can interfere or stop the investigation in exercise of its power u/s 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.).

“In view of the above discussion, this court respectfully disagrees with the Full Bench judgement of this court in Ramlal Yadav (supra) wherein it is observed that FIR or consequential investigation cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 BNSS). Subsequent judgements of the Apex Court clearly indicate that FIR can be quashed in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 BNSS), if the conditions set forth in paragraph no.102 of Bhajan Lal (supra) as well as in paragraph no.33 of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) are satisfied”, it observed.

The Bench thus referred the following questions to a Larger Bench comprising nine judges:

In light of the law set forth by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), and other subsequent judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, is the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ramlal Yadav (supra) that an FIR and the ensuing investigation cannot be quashed by the High Court using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) - still valid?
Can an FIR and its consequential investigation be quashed under the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) if the conditions outlined in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra) and paragraph 33 of Necharika Infrastructure (supra) are fulfilled?

The Bench instructed the Registrar General to present the case record to the Chief Justice within three days for the formation of a Larger Bench consisting of nine judges to address the referenced issues. “The interim order granted earlier will remain in effect until the investigation concludes in case crime no.114 of 2025, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 342 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, at Police Station-Karvi, District-Chitrakoot”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Shashank Gupta Alias Guddu And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10997 of 2025)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Dharmendra Vaish

Opposite Party: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.