The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on procedural law, has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed a writ petition for quashing a First Information Report (FIR) as infructuous merely because a chargesheet had been filed. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the High Court failed to consider its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which was invoked alongside Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter has been remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a writ petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 4394 of 2024) filed by Ms. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR (C.R. No. 648 of 2024) registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur, under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On July 1, 2025, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of the petition. The High Court noted the submission of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the police had completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet before the trial court on May 14, 2025. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13578/2024), the High Court concluded that the petition to quash the FIR had become infructuous. It disposed of the petition while reserving the petitioner’s right to file an application for discharge before the trial court.
Aggrieved by this order, Ms. Kulkarni filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13424/2025 before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had the specific jurisdiction, as per the official “Sitting List,” to hear criminal writ petitions seeking the quashing of FIRs, C.R.s, and chargesheets. It was contended that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not render a petition for quashing an FIR infructuous, and therefore, the High Court’s order was unsustainable in law.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Clarification of Neeta Singh
The Supreme Court bench, which coincidentally had also passed the order in the Neeta Singh case, proceeded to clarify the application of its ratio. The Court highlighted a “distinct factual dissimilarity” between the two cases.
The judgment noted that the writ petition in the Neeta Singh case was filed only under Article 226 of the Constitution, without invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 277 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Furthermore, in that case, the criminal court had already taken cognizance of the offense. It was in that specific context that the petition solely under Article 226 was held to have become infructuous.
In contrast, the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court explicitly invoked the “twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.” The Supreme Court observed that it was not clear from the High Court’s order whether the jurisdictional magistrate had taken cognizance of the offense after the chargesheet was filed.
The Court laid down a crucial distinction: “So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance.”
The bench affirmed that the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench, as per its roster, had the jurisdiction to examine the petitioner’s grievance and could have moulded the relief appropriately since its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS were specifically invoked.
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its application of the precedent. The judgment states, “Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court misread Neeta Singh (supra), inadvertently omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity as indicated above and consequently, misapplied the ratio of such decision to spurn the challenge laid by the petitioner resulting in a failure of justice.”
The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court. The special leave petition was disposed of at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents, and the matter was remanded. The Court ordered that Ms. Kulkarni’s writ petition “shall stand revived for being considered afresh by the roster bench of the Bombay High Court, in accordance with law.”
