Section 528 of BNSS

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vishwa Bandhu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2025) dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023( BNSS) seeking to quash an FIR, noting that the chargesheet and cognizance order were not brought on record.

What was the Background of Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2025) Case? 

• The applicant (Vishwa Bandhu) approached the High Court to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. 
• The primary ground for the challenge was that a second FIR on the same set of facts constitutes an abuse of the process of law as per the Supreme Court's judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala. 
• The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application, arguing that at the investigation stage, the remedy lies in filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, not an application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). 
• The applicant sought quashing of the FIR without placing the chargesheet or cognizance order on record before the Court. 
• At the time of the hearing, no chargesheet had been filed in the case, meaning the applicant could not physically produce such documents.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Sinha relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) to establish a clear distinction between stages of judicial intervention. 
• The Court noted that the Supreme Court held FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken, but once cognizance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and the cognizance order, if duly pleaded. 
• The Court observed: "From perusal of the prayers so made in the present application, it is clear that the applicant has simply sought for quashing the FIR and he has not placed the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken on the chargesheet by the competent Court." 
• Justice Sinha held: "In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra), since the chargesheet and the cognizance has not been placed on record, FIR cannot be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 528 BNSS (old section 482 CrPC)." 
• The petition was dismissed as being non-maintainable for the reason that chargesheet and cognizance order were not placed on record. 
• The State relied on the 1989 Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of UP, which held that Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) applies only to judicial proceedings after cognizance is taken and not to police investigations.

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)? 

• Section 528 of BNSS replaces the former Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, preserving the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice. 
• This provision does not confer new powers but merely recognizes the High Court's pre-existing inherent powers to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Code. 
• Inherent powers under Section 528 cannot be invoked to quash police investigations following a cognizable FIR, interfere with statutory investigation rights, or question the reliability of FIR allegations. 
• Case law establishes that these powers can be exercised to quash proceedings where there is a legal bar, where allegations don't constitute an offence, or where evidence fails to support charges. 
• The Supreme Court cautions against entertaining Section 528 petitions if alternative remedies haven't been pursued and prohibits second petitions on grounds available when filing the first petition. 
• As a saving provision, Section 528 preserves the High Court's discretionary power to intervene in exceptional circumstances when ordinary remedies are inadequate for complete justice. 
• Exercise of powers under Section 528 requires judicial restraint, particularly in cases where investigations are at nascent stages. 
• When considering such petitions, courts must balance protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution against allowing legitimate investigation, especially for economic offences. 
• These powers can prevent abuse where criminal proceedings are initiated with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives stemming from private grudges. 
• Courts are generally more cautious about quashing proceedings in economic offence cases under Section 528, recognizing their distinct nature and wider impact on the financial system.