Introduction

The quashing power of the High Court is an inherent power of the court provided under section 528 of the BNSS. Section 528 BNSS reads as follows:

“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.”

In this article, we will delve into the power of quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS, the circumstances under which it may be granted, and the distinction between approaching quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia.

Understanding its exercise

The power of quashing is to secure the ends of justice. It is discretionary power given to High Court to end any criminal proceedings if it finds it necessary for giving effect to provision of this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

Seven guidelines of this power were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1], these guidelines were follows:

1. Non-disclosure of cognizable offense: No cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
2. Prima-facie no case is made out: No prima-facie case is made out against the accused from the materials and substances of FIR or complaint.
3. Non-disclosure of offense committed: Where the uncontroverted allegation made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Inherently improbable allegations: The allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could conclude that there is a sufficient ground for a proceeding against the accused.
5. Malicious Intention: The criminal proceeding is instituted with malicious intention or with an ulterior motive.
6. Abuse of process: The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of court’s process.
7. Express legal bar: There is express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of the Code or the concerned Act under which a criminal proceeding is instituted.

These seven guidelines are non-exhaustive in nature, it just gives illustrations of possible grounds wherein power of quashing may be exercised.

Under 528 BNSS or Article 226 of Constitution of India

The power of quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings can be entertained under jurisdiction of Section 528 of the BNSS and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the stages at which both can be exercised differs. The power under Article 226 for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings can only be taken before order taking cognizance, once cognizance is taken, the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS need to be exercised.[2]

At what stage the power of quashing may be exercised

The quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings can be taken at any stage. There is no prescription of any stage of proceedings in filing a petition for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court stated that there is no absolute rule prescribing that a FIR cannot be quashed at the nascent stage, by High Courts exercising it power under Article 226 and Section 482 of CrPC equivalent to 528 of the BNSS.[3]

Quashing: An extra-ordinary power

The power of quashing can be said to be an extra-ordinary power of High Court and it should be exercised with proper care and caution as it bypassed the normal course of trial, investigation and appeal. This power is to cure the fundamental injustices and should not be exercised lightly. The chances of success of quashing petition depends on following of guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal.

Conclusion

The power under Section 528 of the BNSS is a discretionary power and its exercise must be done with proper care and caution to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. This article comprehensively addressed all the important aspect of the said provision.

To read more article like this click here.

Read related articles:

---

[1] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

[2] Pardnya Pranjan Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948.

[3] Jeet Sinha, Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Ors.(2025), The Conundrum Between Fundamental Rights and FIRs, Legal SYNK https://legalsynk.com/imran-pratapgadhi-v-uoi2025-fundamental-right-fir/ (last visited 12.10.2025).