Quick answer
Yes. A High Court can quash an FIR or criminal proceeding by using its inherent powers, now saved by Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. (old Section 482 CrPC), or its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It does so to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1990), the Supreme Court listed illustrative situations, such as where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not make out any offence. The power is used with care; the High Court does not hold a mini-trial on disputed facts.
The law
Section 528 B.N.S.S. says nothing in the Sanhita limits or affects the inherent powers (powers that exist without a specific grant) of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The wording is the same as old Section 482 CrPC, so judgments on Section 482 remain relevant to Section 528.
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Supreme Court of India, decided 21 November 1990. Bench: S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ. The Court gave categories, "by way of illustration", where the power under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC could be used to quash proceedings. On the facts, it held that the allegations did disclose a cognizable offence and set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR. It did, however, quash the investigation carried out so far, because the officer conducting it lacked valid authority under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The Bhajan Lal categories
- Allegations in the FIR or complaint, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie (at first sight) make out any offence.
- The FIR and accompanying material do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying police investigation without a Magistrate's order.
- Uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose any offence.
- The allegations make out only a non-cognizable offence, so police cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order.
- The allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed.
- There is an express legal bar to starting or continuing the proceeding, or a specific statutory remedy for the grievance.
- The proceeding is manifestly mala fide (in bad faith) or maliciously started to wreak vengeance out of a private grudge.
The list is not exhaustive, and the power is not a licence to stop every investigation. As the Supreme Court recorded in Hridaya Ranjan (below), Bhajan Lal added a note of caution that the power of quashing should be exercised "very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases". Where serious allegations disclose an offence, the case must go through investigation and trial.
Civil dispute or cheating?
| Breach of a promise (civil) | Cheating (criminal) |
|---|---|
| Honest intention when the promise was made; later failure to perform | Fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very beginning of the transaction |
| Remedy: civil suit for recovery or damages | Offence under Section 318 B.N.S. (old Sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 IPC) |
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, Supreme Court of India, decided 31 March 2000 (K.T. Thomas and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.). The Court held that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Applying the first Bhajan Lal category, it quashed the criminal proceedings.
Zoya lends money to Farhan, who genuinely plans to repay from his shop's earnings. The shop fails and he defaults. Zoya files an FIR for cheating. If the FIR itself shows only an unpaid loan and no deception at the start, Farhan may ask the High Court under Section 528 to quash it, relying on Bhajan Lal and Hridaya Ranjan. Zoya can still sue to recover the money.
For more criminal procedure judgments, see B.N.S.S. case law.
Exam point
Section 528 B.N.S.S. (old Section 482 CrPC) saves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; Bhajan Lal (1990) gives seven illustrative grounds for quashing.
