Summary: The power to quash a criminal matter under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482, CrPC, 1973), is well settled. It is a power to be exercised sparingly, within well accepted parameters, including no offence being disclosed, malice, abuse of criminal process, etc. If such relevant factors otherwise stand fulfilled, there is no bar to quashing an FIR, even if the investigation is at a preliminary/ nascent stage.
Link to INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Courts are no strangers to criminal proceedings initiated out of malice, as an abuse of process or as a pressure tactic, even when no offence is made out. It is often seen that an FIR is registered, for oblique purposes even when there may be no underlying criminal offence.
Those aggrieved have the remedy of petitioning the High Court under Section 582 BNSS, 2023 (what was Section 482 in CrPC, 1973), to quash the FIR/ criminal proceeding.
While it is a truism to state that the law on quashing is very well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through several decisions, including the landmark State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1] (“Bhajan Lal”) judgement, questions on the scope of power to quash continue to emerge.
In the recent Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujrat & Ors [2](“Imran Pratapgadhi”),one of the issues before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether High Courts are prohibited from quashing FIRs when investigations are at a preliminary/ nascent stage.
We consider the Court’s decision on this aspect, against the backdrop of the general jurisprudence on the High Court’s power of quashing.
Link to GENERAL GROUNDS FOR QUASHING GENERAL GROUNDS FOR QUASHING
Any discussion on the power to quash would be incomplete without reference to Bhajan Lal.
The Court has indicated the limited contours within which the power is to be exercised. It has also provided an illustrative category of cases, which indicate when High Courts may quash proceedings by exercising their inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS).
With regard to exercising the power to quash, the Court in Bhajan Lal has clarified that it must be exercised sparingly, without undertaking an exercise to determine the reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made. The statements made in the complaint/ FIR ought to be considered as genuine, and thereafter, it must be considered whether on a prima facie basis the commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Police is duty bound to investigate the commission of a cognizable offence and Courts should be slow in interfering with this duty. The Supreme Court also referred to precedents where it was held that matters at a preliminary stage of investigation ought not to be quashed ordinarily. However, where no offence is disclosed, High Courts must immediately quash because an FIR and investigation in such circumstances is tantamount to harassing an innocent party.
Having explained the boundaries within which the power of quashing should be exercised, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set the following categories, as non-exhaustive illustrations, where the power of quashing ought to be exercised.
(1) Where no offences is made out even if the allegations in the FIR/ complaint are taken to be true.
(2) Where the allegations and other materials do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police.
(3) Where, the allegations only constitute a non-cognizable offence where no investigation by the police is permitted without an order of a Ld. Magistrate.
(4) Where the allegations are absurd, improbable and no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(5) Where there is an express legal bar under law.
(6) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly malicious, instituted to wreak vengeance or with an ulterior motive.
Link to DECISION IN IMRAN PRATAPGADHI DECISION IN IMRAN PRATAPGADHI
The Supreme Court was deliberating on an appeal challenging a decision by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, which had declined to quash an FIR filed against the appellant (Imran Pratapgadhi) for alleged offences related to inciting communal hatred.
The Hon’ble High Court refused to quash the offence on various grounds, including the investigation being at a nascent/ preliminary stage.
On merits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no offence had been made out against the Appellant and the FIR against him was liable to be quashed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further negated the Hon’ble High Court’s reasoning that an FIR at a nascent/ preliminary stage of investigation could not be quashed, by observing:
“Thereafter, the High Court gave a reason that the investigation was at a nascent stage. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage. If such embargo is taken as an absolute rule, it will substantially curtail the powers of the High Court which have been laid down and recognised by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.”
OUR VIEW
The Imran Pratapgadhi judgement provides an important clarification on the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS (previously Section 482 CrPC). It outlines how the question of quashing is to be approached viz. in terms of settled parameters including considering(i) whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, (ii) the presence of malice and/ or (iii) whether the proceedings have been initiated for oblique purposes, and (iv) whether the allegations are so absurd that no rational person acting fairly would accept. If any of these factors exist, the court must not hesitate to quash the proceedings. Whether the investigation is at a preliminary or stage is not the relevant consideration.
Put differently, if it is found that no offence is disclosed, or the matter fits within the illustrations provided in Bhajan Lal, High Courts must exercise their inherent powers and quash the matter. The investigation being at a nascent/ preliminary stage is no bar, if the matter is otherwise fit to be quashed.
[1] 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
[2] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678