Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C) and the Inherent Powers of High Courts: Updated Analysis (2026) 

Posted On - 9 June, 2025 • By - Gaurav Singh Gaur

Introduction

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowered High Courts with inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process and secure justice. Following the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) on 1 July 2024, this power now continues under Section 528 BNSS, substantially preserving the same legal position. Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that High Courts cannot rely on investigation reports while considering such quashing petitions under this provision. Simultaneously, recent judicial developments and procedural reforms under the BNSS have further shaped the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by High Courts. 

Understanding Section 482 CrPC

Inherent Powers of High Courts

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 conferred the inherent powers of the High Courts to pass such orders as are justifiable to: (i) give effect to any order in the Code; (ii) prevent abuse of the process of any court or (iii) secure the ends of justice. It did not bestow new powers but preserved the powers which the High Courts already possess to intervene as and when required. 

Following the enactment of the BNSS, this provision now stands incorporated under Section 528 BNSS, which substantially reproduces the language and intent of Section 482 CrPC. The provision continues to preserve the inherent jurisdiction of High Courts to intervene in exceptional circumstances to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings. 

Historical Evolution

The Hon’ble Supreme Court first clarified the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of High Courts in the year 1960, listing three such cases: 

  • Where there is a legal bar to the institution or continuation of proceedings.  
  • Where the FIR or complaint fails to disclose an offence.  
  • Where there is no legal evidence or where the evidence manifestly does not support the claims.  

They were embodied in 1977 in three broad categories that still guide courts: 

  • To give effect to an order under the CrPC.  
  • To prevent abuse of the court process.  
  • To secure the ends of justice.  

    Purpose and Application

    High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with mala fide motives or to harass a person, thereby avoiding procedural harassment. It empowers courts to dismiss FIRs or criminal proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the accused. 

    Courts can set aside orders illegally made or outside jurisdiction, especially in violation of natural justice principles. The exercise of such power under Section 482 CrPC and now Section 528 BNSS remains discretionary and varies from case to case. 

    Quashing of FIR – Bhajan Lal Guidelines

    In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1 the Supreme Court laid down model categories in which the FIRs can be quashed:

    • When the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence.  
    • When the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence warranting police investigation.  
    • When evidence submitted does not support the accusations.  
    • When only a non-cognizable offence is made out and no prior Magistrate’s approval was sought.  
    • When the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd.  
    • When criminal proceedings are barred by law or where alternative remedies exist.  
    • When the criminal complaint is filed with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives.  

    These principles continue to remain the foundational test while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. 

    Further Clarification in 2017:

    • The Supreme Court once again asserted that Section 482 is an acknowledgement of powers inherent and not a source of powers additional. 
    • It held that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed where necessary. 
    • High Courts have to decide whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of justice. 
    • Grievous offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve greater societal implications. 

    Parallel Provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 528 

    • Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, retains the spirit of Section 482 CrPC. 
    • It asserts that nothing in the BNSS limits or affects the inherent powers of the High Court. 
    • It further provides that such powers can be exercised to: (i) give effect to any order under the Sanhita; (ii) prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) secure the ends of justice. 
    • Importantly, Section 531 BNSS contains a savings clause preserving proceedings instituted under the CrPC before the commencement of the BNSS. Consequently, petitions filed prior to 1 July 2024 continue under the earlier framework, whereas fresh petitions are now instituted under Section 528 BNSS. 

    Procedural Changes under the BNSS 

    • The BNSS has introduced certain procedural reforms that may significantly impact quashing petitions and criminal investigations. 
    • One notable development is Section 173(3) BNSS, which permits a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with imprisonment ranging from three to seven years. Such inquiry may be conducted with prior approval of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and must ordinarily be completed within fourteen days. 
    • This assumes relevance particularly in commercial and economic disputes involving allegations of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Failure to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 173(3) BNSS may itself become a relevant consideration in proceedings seeking quashing of FIRs. 
    • Additionally, the BNSS prescribes tighter investigation timelines for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, thereby seeking to ensure procedural efficiency and reduce prolonged investigative uncertainty. 

    The SC Decision 

    On 1st May, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another,2 emphasized the restricted scope of the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), i.e., in the light of its jurisdiction to entertain reports of investigation while quashing an FIR. The ruling made it clear that these reports were for the Magistrate alone and not for the High Court.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellant Ashok Kumar Jain, Director of “Maayu Import and Export Ltd.” in Sri Lanka, was accused by the second respondent, who runs “Ansh Prints” in Surat, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
    • Following the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”), these offences now correspond to Sections 316 and 318 BNS respectively.
    • The second respondent alleged that sarees worth Rs. 34,71,344/- were exported to the appellant through an intermediary, M/s. Oswal Overseas, from October 2013 to March 2014, but payment was not made despite repeated requests. The FIR, C.R. No. I-06 of 2017, was filed on January 3, 2017.
    • The appellant approached the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR, submitting that the dispute was civil in nature, pertaining to unpaid consideration of sale, and no ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were attracted. 
    • He further argued that the goods were supplied to M/s. Oswal Overseas, which exported the goods, meaning there was no direct privity of contract with him in relation to the alleged offences. 
    • The High Court, however, dismissed the application, noting that the appellant had induced the respondent to deliver the goods and that the offences were prima facie made out. 

    Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

    Granting leave, the Supreme Court considered the High Court order as well as the submissions with careful thought. The Court relied on the settled legal position in the case of quashing of FIRs, referring to State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty3 and Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 , which enunciate that quashing of an FIR must be an exception, exercised judiciously and cautiously, and that courts must not go into a mini-trial or trial of evidence at this juncture.

    Most significantly, the bench reaffirmed that High Courts cannot consider or act on investigation reports while adjudicating petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The Court specifically mentioned the settled jurisprudence in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi5, wherein it was “clearly held that investigation reports can neither be called for nor placed reliance upon by the High Court in proceedings under Section 482.” The Court further added that “the report of the investigating agency cannot be placed reliance upon by the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code.”

    Interpreting the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 IPC as per several key precedents, the Court held that the charges in the FIR, when placed on their documentary evidence (Annexures P1 to P3), did not justify the criminal charges. The Court observed that the “entrustment was made to M/s. Oswal Overseas by respondent no. 2 and not to the appellant.” It observed that the respondent’s attempt at pleading an oral agreement against the export documents was not persuasive.

    The Court held that failure to pay the sale price was a civil dispute between the appellant and M/s. Oswal Overseas. Allowing further pursuit of FIR against the appellant would constitute abuse of the process of law. The Court observed that interference at the investigational level would jeopardize the proper administration of justice if interference is on grounds extraneous to the FIR and uncontroverted facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed FIR.

    Recent Judicial Developments on Quashing Powers 

    Recent decisions have further clarified the cautious manner in which inherent powers are to be exercised. 

    In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (2025)6, the Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts should not enter into disputed questions of fact while considering quashing petitions. The Court emphasized that the inquiry at the quashing stage is confined to determining whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and not whether the allegations are ultimately likely to succeed at trial. 

    Similarly, in Vipin Kumar & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026)7, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly. The Court cautioned against quashing criminal proceedings merely because the accused disputes factual allegations raised in the complaint. 

    Further, in Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026)8, the Supreme Court observed that in offences punishable up to seven years, onerous bail conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS should not be imposed mechanically. The judgment emphasized balancing investigative interests with individual liberty, especially in economic offences involving allegations of cheating and breach of trust. 

    Conclusion

    Section 482 CrPC, now substantially continued as Section 528 BNSS, remains an important safeguard against abuse of criminal process and misuse of prosecutorial machinery. The jurisprudence developed through Bhajan Lal and subsequent decisions continues to guide High Courts in balancing individual liberty with legitimate criminal prosecution. 

    Recent judicial developments reaffirm that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, without conducting mini-trials or evaluating disputed evidence. Simultaneously, procedural reforms introduced under the BNSS, including preliminary inquiries and revised investigation timelines, have added new dimensions to criminal procedure that may significantly impact quashing petitions in commercial and economic disputes. 

    As the post-BNSS framework evolves, the inherent powers of High Courts will continue to play a crucial role in preventing misuse of criminal law while preserving the broader interests of justice. 

    1. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; AIR 1992 SC 604  ↩︎
    2. 2025 INSC 614; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1850 of 2022, decided on 1 May 2025  ↩︎
    3. (2022) 16 SCC 703  ↩︎
    4. (2021) 9 SCC 35  ↩︎
    5. (2007) 12 SCC 369  ↩︎
    6. 2025 INSC 1287; Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1531 of 2025, decided on 6 November 2025  ↩︎
    7. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 45399 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, decided on 23 February 2026; also reported as 2026:AHC:39442  ↩︎
    8. Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026, Supreme Court, order dated 22 April 2026; reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426  ↩︎