The Allahabad High Court has referred a significant legal question regarding the maintainability of applications for quashing FIRs under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to a larger bench of nine judges. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while hearing an application filed by Shashank Gupta and others, who challenged both the order for registration of FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings.
Background
The case stemmed from an application under Section 528 of BNSS, filed to quash an order dated 3 February 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot under Section 175(3) BNSS (equivalent to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.), directing the police to register an FIR. Subsequently, the petitioners also sought to quash FIR No. 114 of 2025 dated 26 February 2025, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legal Issue
A preliminary objection was raised by the State, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Yadav & Others vs. State of U.P. (1989 SCC OnLine All 73), which held that FIRs could not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), and that such relief could only be sought under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, the petitioners contended that the Full Bench ruling stood impliedly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court judgments including State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka, and the recent decision in Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025).
Arguments
For the Petitioners:
Counsel Dharmendra Vaish argued that subsequent Supreme Court rulings have upheld the power of the High Courts to quash FIRs under inherent jurisdiction corresponding to Section 528 BNSS. It was submitted that Ramlal Yadav wrongly relied on the Privy Council decision in Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, misinterpreting its position on inherent jurisdiction.
For the State:
AGA Pankaj Saxena argued that in view of the Full Bench ruling, the application under Section 528 was not maintainable. He asserted that the power under Section 528 can only be exercised after a charge-sheet is filed and proceedings are pending, and not during investigation.
Amicus Curiae Views:
Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari and Advocate Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, appointed as amici curiae, strongly contended that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (like Section 482 Cr.P.C.) remain wide and valid for quashing FIRs where no cognizable offence is made out. They emphasized the shift in jurisprudence post the introduction of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Uttar Pradesh and cited a series of Supreme Court judgments that upheld the use of inherent power even at the FIR stage to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
Raunak Chaturvedi, another amicus, added that judicial precedent permits deviation from the principle of stare decisis when the underlying reasoning of a precedent ceases to hold good in light of new legal developments.
Judicial Analysis
The court carefully examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court:
“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.”
Justice Deshwal noted that while Ramlal Yadav relied heavily on Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, the Privy Council had itself acknowledged that courts could intervene if no cognizable offence is disclosed. Moreover, the repeal of Section 491 of the 1898 Cr.P.C., which allowed habeas corpus-type reliefs, meant that such interventions must now be seen through the lens of Section 482/528.
The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in R.P. Kapur, Swapan Kumar Guha, Bhajan Lal, T.T. Antony, Parbatbhai Aahir, and Abhishek vs. State of M.P., to show the clear recognition of the High Court’s inherent powers to quash proceedings including FIRs.
Decision
In light of the legal controversy and the divergence between earlier Full Bench and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal concluded:
“Whether the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramlal Yadav regarding non-maintainability of an application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR and investigation still holds the field despite several Supreme Court pronouncements needs authoritative consideration.”
Accordingly, the matter has been referred for consideration by a Nine-Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Case No.: Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 10997 of 2025
Counsel: Dharmendra Vaish for applicants; Pankaj Saxena (AGA) for the State
Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari, Advocates Jitendra Kumar Shishodia and Raunak Chaturvedi
