Type to filter the sections on this page · press Enter to search the whole site.
No section on this page matches — press Enter to search the whole site instead.
At a Glance
How a Quashing Petition Moves
Quashing is an extraordinary remedy: the High Court does not hold a trial, but examines whether the FIR or proceedings, taken at face value, disclose an offence or amount to an abuse of process. The flow below traces a quashing petition from the FIR to the final order.
1
FIR / Complaint Registered
2
Assess Grounds (Bhajan Lal)
3
Petition under Section 528 BNSS
4
Filing in the High Court
5
Status Report & Interim Relief
6
Hearing & Order (Quash / Dismiss)
Overview
What is Quashing of an FIR or Proceedings?
Quashing means the High Court setting aside an FIR, a criminal complaint, a charge sheet, or pending criminal proceedings so that they come to an end. The power flows from two distinct sources: the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and the constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution — the writ of certiorari and the power of superintendence. Only the High Court exercises these powers; a trial court cannot quash an FIR.
The guiding authority is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), where the Supreme Court set out seven illustrative categories in which an FIR or proceedings may be quashed — for example, where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not make out any offence, where they are so absurd that no prudent person could proceed on them, where there is an express legal bar, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides. The power is to be used sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases, and the court does not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence at this stage.
Quashing is available at different stages — at the FIR stage, before charges are framed, and even after a charge sheet has been filed. A separate and well-recognised situation is quashing on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties in matters that are predominantly private or civil in nature, as explained in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), though heinous and serious offences are not quashed merely because the parties have compromised.
Key Takeaways
- Quashing flows from the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 482 CrPC) and its writ/supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 — only the High Court can quash; a trial court cannot.
- The governing test is the seven illustrative categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — e.g. no offence made out, absurd/inherently improbable allegations, express legal bar, or mala fide/ulterior motive. The categories are illustrative, not exhaustive.
- The power is exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases; the court does not hold a mini-trial or appreciate evidence at the threshold (Neeharika Infrastructure 2021), and an order of “no coercive steps” must be passed sparingly with reasons.
- A case may be quashed on a genuine settlement where the dispute is predominantly civil or private (Gian Singh 2012; Parbatbhai Aahir 2017) — but heinous, serious and economic offences are not quashed merely on a compromise.
- The inherent power survives even after a charge sheet is filed, and the FIR’s textual narration is not conclusive — the court may read between the lines and examine the attending circumstances and timing (Mahmood Ali 2023; Nitin Ahluwalia 2025).
- Quashing is distinct from discharge (trial court, at charge stage, BNSS S.250/S.262) and from compounding (BNSS S.359, ex-CrPC S.320) — choose the right route for the stage and offence.
Grounds
The Bhajan Lal Categories for Quashing
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) the Supreme Court listed seven illustrative — not exhaustive — categories in which the High Court may quash an FIR or criminal proceedings. The cards below summarise them.
No Offence Made Out
Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
No Cognizable Offence Disclosed
Where the allegations and accompanying material do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police without an order of a Magistrate under the Sanhita.
Uncontroverted Evidence Discloses No Offence
Where the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Only a Non-Cognizable Offence
Where the allegations constitute only a non-cognizable offence, for which the police cannot investigate without an order of a Magistrate.
Absurd & Inherently Improbable
Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
Express Legal Bar
Where there is an express legal bar in any provision of the Sanhita or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, or a specific bar providing redress for the grievance.
Mala Fide / Ulterior Motive
Where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides, or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and spite the accused due to a private or personal grudge.
Reliefs
Reliefs & Court Powers in a Quashing Petition
The High Court's powers in a quashing petition are wide and flexible. Depending on the facts, it may quash the FIR or the proceedings wholly or in part, grant interim protection, or decline relief and direct the case to take its course. The table maps the principal reliefs and their source.
| Relief / Power | Source | What the Court Does |
|---|---|---|
| Quash the FIR & investigation | S.528 BNSS / Art. 226 | Sets aside an FIR that discloses no offence or is an abuse of process, terminating the investigation. |
| Quash proceedings / complaint / charge sheet | S.528 BNSS | Ends a pending complaint, charge sheet or trial that falls within the Bhajan Lal categories. |
| Quash on genuine settlement | S.528 BNSS (Gian Singh) | Quashes predominantly private or civil-flavoured matters on a bona fide compromise; not heinous offences. |
| Interim relief — "no coercive steps" | S.528 BNSS / Art. 226 (Neeharika) | May grant interim protection sparingly, with brief reasons, pending the petition. |
| Partial quashing | S.528 BNSS | Quashes qua some of the accused or some offences while letting the rest proceed. |
| Power even after charge sheet | S.528 BNSS | The power survives the filing of a charge sheet; quashing is not barred merely because the charge sheet is in. |
Law Comparison
Quashing vs Discharge vs Compounding
Ending a criminal case is not always done by quashing. The table contrasts quashing with two related routes — discharge before the trial court and compounding of compoundable offences.
| Feature | Quashing | Discharge | Compounding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provision | S.528 BNSS / Art. 226-227 | BNSS S.250 / S.262 (ex-CrPC S.227 / S.239) | BNSS S.359 (ex-CrPC S.320) |
| Forum | High Court only | Trial court | Trial court |
| Stage | Any — FIR, pre-charge, post-charge-sheet | At the stage of framing of charge | Before judgment |
| Basis | Inherent power — abuse of process / ends of justice | No sufficient ground to proceed on the record | Settlement for listed offences |
| Effect | FIR / proceedings set aside | Accused discharged | Acquittal of the accused |
| Scope of offences | Any (exercised sparingly) | The case before the trial court | Only offences in the S.359 table |
Procedure
Filing a Quashing Petition — Step by Step
The steps below set out the ordinary course of a quashing petition before the High Court. The decisive question throughout is whether the case falls within one of the recognised grounds, judged on the FIR and the material as they stand.
1
Identify the Ground
Map the facts to a recognised ground — one of the Bhajan Lal categories (no offence, absurd allegations, legal bar, mala fides), unimpeachable defence material under the Rajiv Thapar test, or a genuine settlement in a private/civil-flavoured matter under Gian Singh.
2
Draft the Petition under Section 528 BNSS
Prepare a petition invoking Section 528 BNSS (and, where appropriate, Articles 226/227), setting out the parties, the impugned FIR or proceedings, the grounds, and the prayer, with the FIR, charge sheet, settlement deed and supporting documents annexed.
3
File before the High Court & Seek Interim Relief
File the petition before the High Court having jurisdiction. Where warranted, seek interim protection — a stay of investigation or an order that no coercive steps be taken — which the court grants sparingly and with reasons.
4
Notice and Status Report
The court issues notice to the State and the complainant. The police file a status report, and the complainant may oppose. Where quashing is sought on settlement, the parties and the settlement are verified.
5
Hearing — No Mini-Trial
The court examines the FIR and the material at face value; it does not appreciate evidence or decide disputed questions of fact. Where mala fides or abuse are alleged, it may consider the attending circumstances and "read between the lines" (Mahmood Ali, 2023).
6
Order — Quash or Dismiss
The court either quashes the FIR or proceedings (wholly or in part), or dismisses the petition and lets the case proceed. A dismissal does not decide guilt; it only allows the criminal process to continue in the ordinary course.
Important Note
For any quashing petition filed on or after 1 July 2024, the correct provision to cite is Section 528 BNSS — not Section 482 CrPC — even where the FIR was registered years earlier under the old Code. It is the date of filing the petition, not the date of the FIR, that decides which statute applies. The entire body of case law under the former Section 482 — Bhajan Lal, Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Neeharika — continues to apply in full, because Section 528 saves the same inherent power in the same words.
Documents
Documents Commonly Required
The set depends on the stage and the ground. The following are commonly needed in a quashing petition.
Certified copy of the FIR and the list of sections invoked
Charge sheet / complaint and the statements recorded, where available
Settlement deed / compromise affidavit (where quashing is sought on settlement)
Documents showing a legal bar, want of sanction, or limitation, if relied upon
Unimpeachable, sterling material supporting the defence (per the Rajiv Thapar test)
The impugned order / summons / proceedings sought to be quashed
Identity / address proof of the parties and vakalatnama
Court fee and index of documents for the High Court petition
Practical Tip
Frame a quashing petition tightly around the specific Bhajan Lal category that fits the facts — vague “abuse of process” pleas without a category rarely succeed. Annex the FIR, charge sheet (if filed), and any settlement deed or documentary material of “sterling and impeccable quality” (Rajiv Thapar). Where the FIR looks retaliatory, plead the surrounding circumstances and timing (Mahmood Ali; Nitin Ahluwalia). Seek interim “no coercive steps” protection only with reasons (Neeharika). For a settlement-based quashing, confirm the matter is predominantly private or civil and that the offence is not heinous, economic, or against society — courts apply that filter strictly.
Key Points
Key Reference Points — Quashing
⏱ Key Reference Points — Quashing of FIR / Proceedings
Power to quashS.528 BNSS (ex-CrPC S.482)
Constitutional routeArticles 226 / 227
ForumHigh Court only
StageAny — even after charge sheet
Standard of exerciseSparingly; rarest of rare
No mini-trialFIR taken at face value
Quashing on settlementNot for heinous offences
Interim relief"No coercive steps" — sparingly
Limitation to fileNo statutory time limit
Mala fide allegationCourt may read between the lines
FIR registrationBNSS S.173 (Zero FIR)
Governing authorityBhajan Lal — seven categories
Applicable Laws
Relevant Statutes
Quashing rests on the High Court's inherent power under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and its constitutional jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. The verbatim text of the central provisions is set out below.
📖 Relevant Section — S.528 (BNSS, 2023) +
528. Saving of inherent powers of 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.
This is the statutory foundation of quashing. It does not create a new power but saves the High Court's pre-existing inherent power to act where the criminal process is being misused or where intervention is necessary to secure justice. It is the successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the entire body of case law under Section 482 — including Bhajan Lal — continues to guide its exercise. — Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20099.
This is the statutory foundation of quashing. It does not create a new power but saves the High Court's pre-existing inherent power to act where the criminal process is being misused or where intervention is necessary to secure justice. It is the successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the entire body of case law under Section 482 — including Bhajan Lal — continues to guide its exercise. — Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in), handle 123456789/20099.
📖 Relevant Section — Art.226 (Constitution of India) +
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
Article 226 is the constitutional route to quashing. The writ of certiorari and the writ of prohibition allow the High Court to set aside an FIR or restrain proceedings that disclose no offence or are an abuse of process. The jurisdiction is independent of the inherent power under the Sanhita, and the two are often invoked together. — Article 226(1), Constitution of India. Source: Constitution of India; verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542.
Article 226 is the constitutional route to quashing. The writ of certiorari and the writ of prohibition allow the High Court to set aside an FIR or restrain proceedings that disclose no offence or are an abuse of process. The jurisdiction is independent of the inherent power under the Sanhita, and the two are often invoked together. — Article 226(1), Constitution of India. Source: Constitution of India; verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542.
📖 Relevant Section — Art.227 (Constitution of India) +
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.—(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Article 227 gives the High Court a supervisory — not appellate — jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals, exercised most sparingly to keep them within the bounds of their authority. In the quashing context it allows the High Court to correct a subordinate court that has assumed a jurisdiction it does not have or has acted contrary to law. — Article 227(1), Constitution of India. Source: Constitution of India; verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542.
Article 227 gives the High Court a supervisory — not appellate — jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals, exercised most sparingly to keep them within the bounds of their authority. In the quashing context it allows the High Court to correct a subordinate court that has assumed a jurisdiction it does not have or has acted contrary to law. — Article 227(1), Constitution of India. Source: Constitution of India; verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542.
📖 Relevant Section — S.173 (BNSS, 2023) +
173. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it.
Section 173 governs the registration of an FIR in a cognizable case (the successor to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and gives statutory recognition to the Zero FIR. It is the FIR registered under this provision that a quashing petition seeks to set aside. Sub-section (3) permits, for offences punishable with three years and above but less than seven years, a preliminary inquiry into whether a prima facie case exists. — Section 173(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/165794322.
Section 173 governs the registration of an FIR in a cognizable case (the successor to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and gives statutory recognition to the Zero FIR. It is the FIR registered under this provision that a quashing petition seeks to set aside. Sub-section (3) permits, for offences punishable with three years and above but less than seven years, a preliminary inquiry into whether a prima facie case exists. — Section 173(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023). Source: India Code (indiacode.nic.in); text verified at indiankanoon.org/doc/165794322.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 528 & 173
S.528 saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice — the statutory basis for quashing (successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). S.173 governs registration of an FIR in a cognizable case (successor to Section 154 CrPC), including statutory Zero FIR and, under S.173(3), a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with three to less than seven years.
View on India Code →
Constitution of India — Articles 226 & 227
Article 226 confers on every High Court the power to issue directions, orders and writs — including certiorari and prohibition — for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, the constitutional route to quashing an FIR that discloses no offence or is an abuse of process. Article 227 vests the High Court with superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals, exercised sparingly to keep them within their jurisdiction.
View Article 226 →
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Substantive Offences
The offences alleged in an FIR are now charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to the Indian Penal Code, 1860) — for example cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation or cruelty. The power to quash applies whatever the offence, judged against the Bhajan Lal categories; only the manner of exercise varies with the seriousness of the offence.
View on India Code →
Case Law
Landmark & Recent Judgments
The decisions below define when and how the High Court may quash an FIR or criminal proceedings. They arose under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but continue to govern the exercise of the inherent power now saved by Section 528 BNSS. Each link opens the verified judgment on Indian Kanoon.
1
Recent (2023) — Reading Between the Lines
Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India | (2023) 10 SCC 544 | Decided: 08.08.2023 | J.B. Pardiwala, J.
The Court held that where an accused alleges that the FIR is frivolous, vexatious or mala fide, the High Court owes a duty to look beyond the bare averments — to examine the attending circumstances on the record and, with due care, to read between the lines. A textual reading of the FIR alone is not sufficient where the larger circumstances strongly suggest an ulterior motive; the court should not act as a mute spectator at the threshold.
View on Indian Kanoon →
2
Recent (2021) — FIR-Quashing Restated; No Mini-Trial
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India | (2021) 19 SCC 401 | Decided: 13.04.2021 | M.R. Shah, J.
A comprehensive restatement of the principles governing FIR quashing and interim relief. The Court reaffirmed Bhajan Lal, held that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence at the threshold, and that quashing remains an exception. It cautioned that an order directing that no coercive steps be taken, or staying the investigation, should be passed sparingly, in exceptional cases, and with brief reasons.
View on Indian Kanoon →
3
Recent (2017) — Principles Consolidated
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat
Supreme Court of India | (2017) 9 SCC 641 | Decided: 04.10.2017 | Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
The Court consolidated the law on quashing on settlement into a set of propositions: the power under Section 482 is to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse, and is wider than, and distinct from, compounding. Quashing on settlement is appropriate where the dispute is overwhelmingly civil or commercial, but economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies, and offences with a serious impact on society, ordinarily stand on a different footing and are not quashed merely on a compromise.
View on Indian Kanoon →
4
Recent (2014) — Guidelines for Settlement-Quashing
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India | (2014) 6 SCC 466 | Decided: 27.03.2014 | A.K. Sikri, J.
Building on Gian Singh, the Court laid down guidelines for quashing on the basis of a compromise: the power to quash under Section 482 is guided by whether the ends of justice justify it, and is distinct from compounding under Section 320. Offences that are private or civil in nature may be quashed on settlement, but heinous offences such as murder, rape or dacoity, and offences under special statutes, are not to be quashed merely because the parties have settled.
View on Indian Kanoon →
5
Recent (2013) — The Step-Wise Test
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
Supreme Court of India | (2013) 3 SCC 330 | Decided: 23.01.2013 | J.S. Khehar, J.
The Court laid down a step-wise enquiry for quashing where the accused relies on defence material: is the material of sterling and impeccable quality; would it rule out the allegations if accepted; is it beyond suspicion or doubt; and would continuing the trial then amount to an abuse of process. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the High Court should quash, saving precious court time on a trial that cannot end in conviction.
View on Indian Kanoon →
6
Landmark (2012) — Quashing on Settlement
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India | (2012) 10 SCC 303 | Decided: 24.09.2012 | R.M. Lodha, J. (3-Judge Bench)
A three-Judge Bench clarified that the High Court's power to quash under its inherent jurisdiction is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC. Even non-compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of a settlement where the dispute is predominantly civil or private in nature — for example, matrimonial, commercial or family disputes — but the court must refrain from quashing where the offence is heinous or serious, or where it has a serious impact on society or involves public interest.
View on Indian Kanoon →
7
Landmark (1992) — The Seven Categories for Quashing
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Supreme Court of India | 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 | S. Ratnavel Pandian & K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
The most cited authority on quashing. The Court laid down seven illustrative categories in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be exercised to quash an FIR or proceedings — among them, where the allegations make out no offence, where they are absurd and inherently improbable, where there is an express legal bar, and where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides. The Court cautioned that the power is to be exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases, and that the categories are illustrative, not exhaustive.
View on Indian Kanoon →
8
Landmark (1988) — Where Conviction is Bleak
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Supreme Court of India | (1988) 1 SCC 692 : AIR 1988 SC 709 | Decided: 09.02.1988 | Ranganath Misra, J.
The Court held that, when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence and whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuing, the court may quash even at a preliminary stage. On the facts, the dispute was essentially civil and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
View on Indian Kanoon →
9
Landmark (1977) — Inherent Power to Prevent Harassment
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
Supreme Court of India | (1977) 2 SCC 699 : AIR 1977 SC 1489 | Decided: 03.03.1977 | (3-Judge Bench)
A three-Judge Bench held that the saving of the High Court's inherent power is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose — that court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court may quash where the material on record does not support the prosecution. It also clarified that the three illustrative instances in R.P. Kapur are not exhaustive, and that the jurisdiction cannot be confined within a rigid formula.
View on Indian Kanoon →
10
Landmark (1960) — The Early Grounds for Quashing
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India | AIR 1960 SC 866 | Decided: 25.03.1960 | J.C. Shah, J.
An early and foundational statement of the inherent power. The Court identified categories in which a High Court would be justified in quashing proceedings: where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the offence alleged; and where the allegations do constitute the offence but there is no legal evidence, or the evidence clearly fails to prove the charge. The Court added that no inflexible rule can govern the exercise of this jurisdiction.
View on Indian Kanoon →
Recent Developments
Recent Developments & Trends
Sep 2025 — SC
Nitin Ahluwalia: No Mechanical Dismissal of Quashing Pleas
In Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (2025 INSC 1128, 18.09.2025) the Supreme Court quashed a 498A FIR, holding that the High Court erred in mechanically refusing quashing as "premature." Courts must weigh the background, context and timing of the FIR — a retaliatory complaint filed after adverse foreign custody/divorce orders fell within Bhajan Lal category 7 (mala fide / abuse of process).
2024 — New Code
BNSS Replaces the CrPC; Section 528 = Section 482
From 1 July 2024 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inherent power to quash is now saved by Section 528 BNSS in the same words as the former Section 482, so the established case law — Bhajan Lal and after — continues to apply.
2021 — Restraint at the Threshold
Neeharika: No Mini-Trial, No Routine Stay
In Neeharika Infrastructure the Court restated that quashing is an exception, that the High Court must not appreciate evidence at the FIR stage, and that an order of "no coercive steps" or a stay of investigation should be passed only sparingly and with reasons.
2012-2017 — Settlement Line
Compromise-Quashing Consolidated
From Gian Singh through Narinder Singh to Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court settled that private and civil-flavoured matters may be quashed on a genuine settlement, while heinous, serious and economic offences are not quashed merely on a compromise.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What does quashing of an FIR mean?
Quashing means the High Court setting aside an FIR, complaint, charge sheet or criminal proceedings so that they come to an end. It is an extraordinary remedy exercised where the proceedings disclose no offence or amount to an abuse of the process of the court, rather than after a full trial.
Under which law is an FIR quashed?
An FIR or proceedings are quashed by the High Court under its inherent power in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and under its writ and supervisory jurisdiction in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The two are often invoked together.
Which court can quash an FIR?
Only the High Court can quash an FIR or criminal proceedings. A trial court does not have this power, though it may discharge an accused at the stage of framing of charge if there is no sufficient ground to proceed.
On what grounds can an FIR be quashed?
The guiding authority is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which set out seven illustrative categories — among them, where the allegations make out no offence even at face value, where they are absurd and inherently improbable, where there is an express legal bar, and where the proceeding is mala fide or maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance.
Can an FIR be quashed after the charge sheet is filed?
Yes. The power to quash survives the filing of a charge sheet, and quashing may be sought at the FIR stage, before charges are framed, or after the charge sheet. The court still judges the matter on the FIR and material as they stand, without holding a trial.
Can criminal proceedings be quashed on a compromise?
In matters that are predominantly private or civil in nature, the High Court may quash on the basis of a genuine settlement, as explained in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012). However, heinous and serious offences, and offences with a serious impact on society or public interest, are not quashed merely because the parties have settled.
What is the difference between quashing and discharge?
Quashing is done by the High Court under its inherent and constitutional powers, and can be sought at any stage including the FIR. Discharge is done by the trial court at the stage of framing of charge, where it finds no sufficient ground to proceed on the record. They are distinct remedies for different stages.
Will the High Court examine evidence while deciding a quashing petition?
No. As restated in Neeharika Infrastructure (2021), the High Court does not conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence at the quashing stage. It examines the FIR and the material at face value to see whether an offence is disclosed or the case falls within the recognised categories.
Can the High Court stay the investigation or grant "no coercive steps"?
Yes, but sparingly. Neeharika Infrastructure held that an order staying the investigation, or directing that no coercive steps be taken against the accused, should be passed only in exceptional cases and with brief reasons, since the power to quash is itself an exception.
Is there a limitation period to file a quashing petition?
There is no statutory limitation period prescribed for invoking the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. That said, an unexplained delay may be a circumstance the court takes into account, and a petition is ordinarily moved without avoidable delay once the ground arises.
Where is a quashing petition filed in Delhi?
A quashing petition is filed before the High Court having jurisdiction — in Delhi, the Delhi High Court — in respect of FIRs and proceedings arising in the Delhi District Courts at Rohini, Tis Hazari, Karkardooma, Saket and Dwarka. The firm's practice covers these forums.
Self-Assessment
Test Your Knowledge — Quashing of FIR / Proceedings Quiz
⚖️ Quashing of FIR / Proceedings
Glossary
Key Legal Terms
Quashing
The High Court setting aside an FIR, complaint, charge sheet or criminal proceedings so that they come to an end.
Inherent Power (S.528 BNSS)
The High Court's saved power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice; the successor to Section 482 CrPC.
FIR
First Information Report — the information of a cognizable offence recorded by police under Section 173 BNSS, setting the criminal process in motion.
Cognizable Offence
An offence in which the police may investigate and arrest without the prior order of a Magistrate.
Writ of Certiorari
A writ under Article 226 by which the High Court quashes an order or proceeding of an inferior court or authority that is without jurisdiction or contrary to law.
Article 227
The High Court's power of superintendence — supervisory, not appellate — over subordinate courts and tribunals, exercised sparingly.
Discharge
An order of the trial court releasing an accused at the stage of framing of charge where there is no sufficient ground to proceed.
Compounding
A statutory settlement of a compoundable offence under Section 359 BNSS, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Status Report
The report filed by the police, at the court's direction, setting out the stage and material of the investigation.
Zero FIR
An FIR registered at any police station irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, later transferred to the jurisdictional station; recognised by Section 173 BNSS.
Was this page helpful?
Thank you — your feedback has been noted.
This is an informational guide and is reviewed periodically against the official sources cited above. If any provision appears outdated or an inadvertent error is noticed, it may be pointed out using the contact details on this page so that the content can be reviewed and corrected. Readers should verify the current statutory text and case law from authentic sources before relying on it.
