Quashing of FIR Under Section 528 BNSS

An FIR records information about an alleged cognizable offence and ordinarily sets a police investigation in motion. Under current procedure, Section 173 BNSS governs information in cognizable cases; saved CrPC matters may still involve Sections 154 or 156. Registration is not proof of guilt.

It is the most significant and supportive evidence on which the entire structure of the prosecution case is built. It is the first report of the crime and, hence, a valuable document that sheds light on the crime.

FIRs lodged by the police after the complainant made a complaint can be quashed or made void if they were lodged illegally.
Not every complaint is registered by the police. Hence, it is essential to know that the Indian Penal Code specifies two types of offenses: cognizable and non-cognizable offenses.

• To understand the types, we can simply note that serious offenses are ‘Cognizable offences,’ like theft, murder, robbery, rape, acid attack, offenses related to Narcotics, etc., and the offenses which are not severe are ‘Non – Cognizable offence’ example forgery, slander or libel, etc.
• Cognizable offenses may be bailable or non-bailable; non-cognizable offenses are generally bailable.
• For a cognizable offence, police may investigate without a Magistrate’s prior order. For a non-cognizable offence, Section 174 BNSS requires the prescribed entry and referral, and police cannot investigate without the Magistrate’s order. See the dedicated cognizable and non-cognizable offences guide.

Quashing Of FIR

Quashing of FIR is the legal process by which the respected Court nullifies the initial complaint and halts criminal proceedings associated with it. Quashing can be defined as overthrowing/abating/annulling/vacating/making void. In simplest terms, quashing criminal proceedings would mean ceasing the legal machinery that had been set in motion. This is usually done after an FIR is filed before the charge sheets are filed.

The High Court’s inherent powers are preserved by Section 528 BNSS. Section 482 CrPC remains relevant to matters governed or saved under the former Code. The Supreme Court’s constitutional appellate powers are distinct and should not be presented as a routine FIR-quashing route.

For proceedings governed by the BNSS, Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power is discretionary and exercised sparingly; it is not a factual trial on disputed evidence.

The police investigate the FIR and file a charge sheet if the charges in the FIR are proven to be correct. If the person named or not named in the FIR is aggrieved and finds that the FIR is an abuse of the legal process or contrary to the principles of natural justice, the Cr.P.C provides for seeking a remedy to get it quashed or make the FIR void.

Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court for Quashing of FIR

The Supreme Court’s categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal remain frequently cited when courts assess whether allegations disclose an offence or proceedings are an abuse of process. They are illustrative, not a mechanical checklist guaranteeing quashing.

1. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offense or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offense, 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.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offense and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense but constitute a non-cognizable offense, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Grounds For Quashing of FIR

Quashing of FIR is not an arbitrary decision, and it must be based on specific legal reasons. The grounds for quashing an FIR may include:

1. Lack of Prima Facie Case

A quashing court generally does not conduct a full trial of disputed evidence. Relief may be considered where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence or where a recognised legal bar or abuse of process is shown.

2. Settlement between Parties

The High Court has the authority to quash a First Information Report (FIR) when a compromise is reached between the complainant and the accused. Both parties can jointly file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C), outlining the terms and conditions of the settlement. The Court will meticulously assess the facts, circumstances, and merits of the case before deciding whether to quash the FIR based on the compromise. However, if the Court deems the compromise unsatisfactory or lacking genuineness, it may decline to quash the FIR. In such situations, if the offense is compoundable, the parties can resort to the trial court if the High Court has rejected the request to quash the FIR.

3. Abuse of Process of Law

If an FIR is filed with malicious intent, mala fide motives, or to settle personal scores, the Court may intervene to prevent misuse of the legal system. The High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice

4. Protection of Fundamental Rights

the Supreme Court has held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. If the FIR or the investigative actions infringe upon the accused’s fundamental rights, the Court may quash the FIR.

5. Factual Innocence

A disputed claim of factual innocence ordinarily requires evidence and cannot by itself convert quashing proceedings into a trial. The High Court examines whether the legal threshold for inherent relief is met.

6. FIR based on Frivolous or Unsubstantiated Grounds

If the FIR is based on trivial or unsubstantiated grounds or when an accused has been falsely implicated by manipulation of facts, then it is said to be a mala-fide criminal proceeding. The Court may quash the complaint.

7. Violation of Procedural Safeguards

If there are significant procedural irregularities or violations during the investigation, the Court may consider quashing the FIR.

8. Double Jeopardy

If the accused has been previously prosecuted or punished for the same offense, the FIR may be quashed on the grounds of double jeopardy.

9. Matters Involving Commercial Disputes

The Court may quash the FIR in cases where the dispute is purely commercial or civil and does not involve any criminal offense.

10. Juvenile or Aged Accused

Age alone is not a general ground for quashing an FIR. Juvenile cases are governed by the Juvenile Justice framework, while any inherent-power petition must satisfy the recognised legal threshold.

11. Public Interest

Public interest may inform the court’s assessment, but it is not a standalone promise of quashing. Serious offences with wider social impact are treated cautiously, particularly where settlement is relied upon.

Section 498-A And Quashing Of FIR

Matrimonial allegations may sometimes be considered for quashing after a genuine settlement, but the High Court examines the nature of the offence, voluntariness of the settlement and wider public interest. Complaints under former Section 498A IPC or corresponding BNS provisions should not be described through gendered assumptions or presumed to be false.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is broad but not unlimited. It is exercised sparingly on the facts of the case and in accordance with binding precedent; serious offences and offences with societal impact are not ordinarily treated as private disputes merely because parties seek settlement.

The laws have been made to ensure that no one is suppressing anyone, and if someone is, then he shall be punished. However, there are numerous circumstances in which a person uses these laws, which favour him, to trouble innocent people. To tackle this, the lawmakers have given the High Court the power to quash an FIR if they are satisfied that it was lodged with the motive to trouble the person and there is no need to continue the legal proceedings against that person.

Specifically in matrimonial disputes, false allegations of cruelty against husbands and their relatives are often lodged under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. However, many times, the involved parties subsequently come to a mutual understanding. They may formalize their agreement through a Mutual Compromise Deed, which outlines the terms and conditions of the settlement.

To have the First Information Report (FIR) quashed, both parties are required to appear before the High Court, record their statements, and establish their identities. This procedure can occur either during ongoing court proceedings or independently after the conclusion of divorce proceedings by mutual consent. Generally, the courts acknowledge the mutual settlement and issue an order to quash the FIR based on the compromise.

Landmark Judgments

1. The case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) is another pivotal decision that has justified an indelible mark on the quashing of FIRs in India. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be exercised sparingly, judiciously, and with great caution. The Court outlined specific categories where quashing is justified, such as cases where there is no legal evidence, or the complaint does not disclose any offense. This case’s principles continue to guide the judiciary in applying Section 482.

2. The apex Court, in its decision of Mohammed Wajid v. State of U.P 2023, INSC 2023, observed that when it comes to quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, ‘the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.

3. In the Case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P 2023 INSC 687, the apex court observed that in cases where the quashing of FIR is sought, especially because the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such cases or circumstances, the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely”.

4. In the case of Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013), the Delhi High Court elucidated the grounds for quashing an FIR in cases involving matrimonial disputes. The Court recognized the importance of differentiating between genuine cases and those filed with ulterior motives. This landmark judgment emphasized that FIRs in matrimonial disputes must not be used as tools for vengeance, and the courts have a responsibility to protect innocent individuals from harassment.

5. Suresh Pothugunta Versus State of Haryana (2023), in this case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has provided a detailed explanation of Section 174A cases, including who can be the complainant in such cases. If police officers are the complainants, then the FIR can be quashed as it is barred by Section 195 of the Cr.P.C

Conclusion

The power to quash an FIR is a vital mechanism in the Indian legal system to ensure justice, prevent misuse of the legal process, and protect the rights of the accused. The guidelines and grounds for quashing are carefully defined, and the decision to quash an FIR is always based on the specific circumstances of each case. This power, vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, serves as a safeguard against frivolous or malicious prosecutions and emphasizes the principles of fairness and justice in the Indian legal system.

Kapil Dixit LLP Law Firm in Bangalore.

Frequently Asked Questions about Quashing of FIR