The Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court order that disposed of a quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The Bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, held that when a party seeks the quashing of an FIR, the High Court is duty-bound to consider the merits of the challenge rather than dismissing the matter with procedural directions.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute regarding access to a burial ground at a public graveyard (Qabristan) in Village Dundahera, Ghaziabad. Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 166 of 2025) was registered at Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad, against the appellants. The FIR invoked Sections 191(2), 115(2), 131, 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The appellants approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashment of the FIR. However, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition without examining the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the concerned police to follow the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ordered the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within 60 days.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s approach was inadequate given the nature of the prayer. The Bench noted:
“In our considered view, when petitioner(s) have sought quashing of the FIR, the High Court ought to have considered the merits of the matter and decided the same one way or the other, considering the material available and the applicable law.”
The Court highlighted the “settled legal position” that once a petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or Section 528 of the BNSS, it should be decided on merits rather than being dismissed as infructuous or by issuing routine directions to follow the Arnesh Kumar judgment.
Legal Framework for Quashing
To reiterate the standard for quashing criminal proceedings, the Bench referred to its earlier observation in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025). The judgment outlined a four-step test to determine the veracity of a quashing prayer:
- Step One: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and of “sterling and impeccable quality.”
- Step Two: Whether this material would rule out the assertions in the charges, persuading a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations as false.
- Step Three: Whether the material has not been, or cannot be, justifiably refuted by the prosecution.
- Step Four: Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an “abuse of process of the court” and fail to serve the ends of justice.
The Court noted that if the answer to these steps is affirmative, the “judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings.”
Furthermore, citing Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025), the Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to examine grievances for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the cognizance order under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The matter has been remitted back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on its merits.
Critically, the Court provided interim relief to the appellants, stating:
“Till the matter remains pending before the High Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner(s).”
The Criminal Appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Md. Mashood & Ors. v. The State of UP & Ors.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10669 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Date: February 25, 2026
