HomeQuashing of Criminal Cases in Calcutta High CourtBNSS 2023Calcutta High CourtCriminal MattersQuashing of Criminal Cases in Calcutta High Court

Quashing of Criminal Cases in Calcutta High Court

Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedInKey takeaways High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings […]

July 22, 2025
BNSS 2023, Calcutta High Court, Criminal Matters
41 min read
Key takeaways
  • High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings is now codified in Section 528 BNSS, preserving earlier jurisprudence from Section 482 CrPC.
  • The transition reflects legislative continuity, ensuring established precedents and principles remain applicable under the new framework.
  • Inherent powers of the High Court safeguard against misuse of the legal process, crucial for maintaining justice.
  • Quashing of proceedings is guided by State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outlines illustrative categories to prevent abuse.
  • Judicial review can quash charges when disputes are fundamentally civil, lacking criminal intent, or marked by malicious prosecution.
  • Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) provide a remedy against dismissals of quashing applications, emphasizing judicial oversight.
  • This power serves as a critical filter, ensuring the criminal justice system remains free from frivolous cases and harassment.

An Expert Report on the Quashing of Criminal Proceedings by the High Court under Indian Law

Part I: The Legal Framework and Inherent Powers of the High Court

YouTube video Overview:

Section 1: Introduction and Clarification of Governing Law

1.1 Addressing the Query: Section 512 BNSS vs. Section 528 BNSS

The landscape of criminal procedure in India is undergoing a significant transformation with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).1 A preliminary clarification is essential regarding the statutory provision that governs the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings. The query refers to Section 512 of the BNSS. However, a textual analysis of the new Sanhita reveals that Section 512 BNSS is the direct successor to Section 466 CrPC and pertains to procedural irregularities in attachment proceedings. It states that no attachment shall be deemed unlawful due to any defect in the summons, writ, or other related proceedings.2 This provision is fundamentally unrelated to the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint or First Information Report (FIR).
The correct and applicable provision under the new legal framework is Section 528 of the BNSS. This section is titled “Saving of inherent powers of High Court” and is the statutory successor to the widely invoked Section 482 of the CrPC.5 Therefore, this report will proceed with a comprehensive analysis of the quashing process under the legal authority of Section 528 BNSS, treating it as the operative provision for the High Court’s inherent powers.

1.2 Legislative Continuity: From Section 482 CrPC to Section 528 BNSS

Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines
The transition from the CrPC to the BNSS does not signify a jurisprudential break in the context of the High Court’s inherent powers. Section 528 of the BNSS is pari materia—meaning on the same subject matter and having the same scope—with its predecessor, Section 482 of the CrPC. A comparative analysis reveals that the substantive text is virtually identical, preserving the tripartite objectives for which this extraordinary power can be exercised: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court; or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.7
Provision
Verbatim Text
Key Phrases
Judicial Interpretation/Implication
Section 482 CrPC, 1973
“Saving of inherent powers of High Court. – Nothing in this Code 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 Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 9
– Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect – inherent powers – prevent abuse of the process – secure the ends of justice
This is a saving clause, not a source of new power. It acknowledges the pre-existing, plenary power of the High Court. The power is to be used sparingly, in exceptional cases, to correct grave injustice.
Section 528 BNSS, 2023
“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.” 7
– Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect – inherent powers – prevent abuse of the process – secure the ends of justice
The language is identical, ensuring that the entire body of jurisprudence developed over five decades under Section 482 CrPC remains directly applicable and authoritative for the interpretation and application of Section 528 BNSS.
This legislative continuity is not merely academic; it has profound practical implications. It ensures that the landmark precedents and guiding principles established by the Supreme Court and various High Courts remain the law of the land, providing stability and predictability in the administration of criminal justice.
The transition from the old to the new code creates a jurisdictional litmus test for pending and new matters. The recent decision of the Sikkim High Court in Deepam Pradhan v. Krishna Kumari Bhandari provides crucial guidance on this transitional phase.5 In this case, an FIR was registered in 2022 under the CrPC regime, but the petition for quashing was filed after the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024. The court was faced with a maintainability challenge, arguing that the petition should have been filed under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court decisively ruled that any application, trial, or inquiry instituted on or after the commencement date of the BNSS must be governed by the provisions of the new Sanhita. This establishes a clear and vital principle: the determinative date is the date of filing the application before the court, not the date of the underlying FIR or complaint. This means that for years to come, High Courts will apply Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings that originated and were investigated entirely under the CrPC, making the seamless application of old precedents to the new law a matter of paramount importance for legal practitioners.

1.3 The Nature of “Inherent Powers”: Preserved, Not Conferred

The term “inherent powers” carries significant jurisprudential weight. Section 528 BNSS, like Section 482 CrPC before it, is a “saving clause”.11 This statutory language signifies that the legislature is not conferring a new power upon the High Court but is merely acknowledging and preserving a power that already exists by virtue of the High Court’s status as a superior court of record. These powers are deeply rooted in the necessity of ensuring that the administration of justice is not obstructed by procedural gaps or the misuse of legal machinery.11
This doctrine of inherent power functions as a crucial constitutional safeguard against legislative and executive overreach. If the power were merely “conferred” by statute, it could theoretically be curtailed or even abolished by a subsequent legislative amendment. However, by being “inherent,” this power is inextricably linked to the High Court’s fundamental role in a constitutional democracy—a role that includes judicial superintendence over subordinate courts (under Article 227 of the Constitution) and the protection of fundamental rights. This makes Section 528 BNSS more than a procedural provision; it is a vital check and balance, empowering the judiciary to intervene when the process of law is being abused, for instance, by the executive (police) through malicious investigations or by litigants through vexatious complaints. This provides a deeper, constitutional context to the entire mechanism of quashing, elevating it from a mere legal procedure to an essential instrument for upholding the rule of law.

Part II: Grounds for Quashing Criminal Proceedings: A Doctrinal and Case Law Analysis

Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines
The exercise of the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings is not arbitrary. It is guided by a well-established set of principles, primarily articulated in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. This judgment serves as the foundational text for any analysis of the grounds for quashing.Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines

Section 2: The Foundational Principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2.1 Introduction to the Landmark Judgment

The case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal arose from a factual matrix steeped in political animosity. Allegations of corruption were leveled against Bhajan Lal, a former Chief Minister, by a political rival. The Supreme Court, recognizing the potential for the criminal justice system to be weaponized for personal and political vendettas, laid down a structured framework to guide High Courts in exercising their inherent powers.13 The Court’s objective was to create an illustrative, though not exhaustive, list of categories where quashing would be justified to prevent the abuse of the process of law.17

2.2 Detailed Examination of the Seven Illustrative Categories

The Bhajan Lal judgment enumerated seven categories of cases where the High Court could, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), quash criminal proceedings. These categories remain the definitive touchstone for such petitions.
Category from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Principle Explained
Illustrative Judgments
1. No Prima Facie Offence
The allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if accepted in their entirety at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 13
– Usha Chakraborty & Anr v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 18
2. No Cognizable Offence Disclosed
The allegations in the FIR and any accompanying materials do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying a police investigation under Section 156(1) CrPC without a Magistrate’s order. 13
– P. Viswanathan vs Dr. A.K. Burman And Anr. 20
3. Insufficient Evidence
The uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 13
– Kalyan Panda v. State of W.B. 21
4. Offence is Non-Cognizable
The allegations in the FIR make out only a non-cognizable offence, and no order has been passed by a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC permitting an investigation.
– State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 22
5. Absurd and Inherently Improbable Allegations
The allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 13
– X v. State of Maharashtra 23
6. Express Legal Bar
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.
– Punit Beriwala v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi (discusses limitation bar) 25
7. Malicious and Vengeful Prosecution
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 with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13
– Suman Mishra vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 27

Section 3: Quashing Based on the Merits and Nature of the Dispute

Beyond the Bhajan Lal framework, jurisprudence has evolved to address specific aspects of the allegations and the nature of the underlying dispute.

3.1 Absence of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

A cornerstone of criminal law is the requirement of mens rea, or a guilty mind. If the allegations, even if true, do not disclose the requisite criminal intent for the charged offence, the proceedings can be quashed. For instance, in a case of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the deceased’s in-laws because the FIR and suicide note, while alleging past harassment, failed to show any proximate act of instigation or a positive act that would constitute the mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide.28 The Court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment, without evidence of a direct and active role leading to the tragic outcome, are insufficient to sustain the charge.28

3.2 Disputes of a Predominantly Civil Nature

A frequent ground for quashing is the contention that a purely civil dispute has been given the “cloak of criminality” to exert pressure on a party.30 The judiciary acts as a crucial gatekeeper in these situations, meticulously examining the facts to determine if the ingredients of a criminal offence are genuinely made out or if the matter is essentially about a civil remedy.
  • Commercial Disputes: In the realm of commercial transactions, this distinction is paramount. The Supreme Court, in Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, quashed an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a commercial sale, holding that a mere failure to pay dues under a contract does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.32 The Court underscored that the police machinery cannot be used as a recovery agent for civil dues and that criminal proceedings should not be initiated unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.
  • Property Disputes: Similarly, disputes over property, inheritance, or the management of societies are often civil in nature. The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising from disputes within a residents’ forum, noting that the underlying conflict was about control and management, which should be adjudicated in a civil court.33 The Supreme Court, in
    Usha Chakraborty & Anr v. State of West Bengal & Anr., set aside a Calcutta High Court order and quashed an FIR where a property dispute was given a criminal colour, finding the allegations to be vague and lacking the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.18

Section 4: Quashing Based on Procedural Impropriety and Abuse of Process

Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines

4.1 Malicious Prosecution and Personal Vengeance

This ground, an extension of the seventh Bhajan Lal category, is one of the most significant demonstrations of the High Court’s role in preventing the abuse of its own process. Courts are acutely aware that the legal system can be misused for harassment or to settle personal scores.34 This is particularly prevalent in matrimonial disputes, where there is a noted tendency to implicate the husband and all his relatives with general and omnibus allegations.23 The Calcutta High Court has repeatedly cautioned that courts must be “extremely careful” in such cases and should not hesitate to quash proceedings against relatives where no specific, active role is attributed to them.21 The Supreme Court’s decision in
Suman Mishra vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh is a prime example, where an FIR filed by a wife two months after her husband initiated divorce proceedings was quashed as a “vexatious” and malicious “counter blast”.27
This judicial scrutiny reveals a deep-seated recognition of systemic issues, where the initiation of a criminal complaint itself can be a form of punishment. The act of quashing on grounds of mala fides is the judiciary’s most direct intervention to correct what it perceives as an abuse originating at the very inception of the criminal process, reflecting a fundamental tension between the judiciary’s duty to uphold justice and the executive’s (police’s) statutory power to investigate.

4.2 Inordinate and Unexplained Delay

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. An inordinate and unexplained delay in investigation or trial can itself be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings, as it causes immense prejudice and mental agony to the accused. The Orissa High Court quashed a nine-year-old criminal case where the trial had not commenced solely due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, terming the situation a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights.36 The Calcutta High Court has also entertained writ petitions to quash proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay.37
However, a crucial distinction must be made between delay in investigation/trial and delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi clarified that a delay in filing the FIR cannot be a ground for quashing, especially for serious offences punishable with more than three years’ imprisonment, for which Section 468 CrPC (now Section 510 BNSS) prescribes no limitation period.25 The Court held that the explanation for such a delay is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Section 5: Quashing Based on Settlement and Compromise

5.1 The Doctrine of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court, in the seminal case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, carved out a clear distinction between the “compounding” of an offence under Section 320 CrPC (now Section 359 BNSS) and the “quashing” of proceedings under the High Court’s inherent powers.9 Compounding is a statutory mechanism limited to the offences specified in the section. Quashing, on the other hand, is a judicial act based on the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice. The Court held that the High Court’s power to quash is not fettered by Section 320 and can be exercised even in cases of non-compoundable offences if the circumstances so warrant.38

5.2 Application to Non-Compoundable Offences

The key principle for quashing a non-compoundable offence based on a settlement is the nature of the crime. The court must determine whether the offence is primarily of a private nature, affecting only the individuals involved, or if it has a serious impact on society at large. Where the dispute is overwhelmingly private, such as in matrimonial cases, financial disputes between parties, or minor assaults, the High Court can quash the proceedings to promote peace and harmony and to prevent the continuation of a trial that would likely end in acquittal due to the compromise.39
This judicial approach reflects a policy of sorting criminal cases into two categories. The first category involves private wrongs, where the court prioritizes individual autonomy, peaceful resolution, and judicial efficiency, allowing parties to settle and move forward. The second category involves public wrongs, where the court acts as the guardian of societal interest.

5.3 Limitations in Heinous and Socio-Economic Offences

The power to quash based on settlement has clear and strict limitations. The judiciary asserts that the State’s duty to prosecute cannot be abdicated through private compromise in certain categories of offences.
  • Heinous Offences: Crimes that are against society, such as murder, rape, dacoity, and other offences involving mental depravity, cannot be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the victim and the offender. The overriding public interest in punishing such crimes outweighs the private settlement.22
  • Economic Offences: The Supreme Court has consistently held that economic offences form a class apart. In cases of financial fraud, bank fraud, and misappropriation of public funds, which have a serious impact on the nation’s economy and public exchequer, quashing based on settlement is impermissible.42 In
    Anil Bhavarlal Jain, the Court refused to quash proceedings against company directors despite a one-time settlement with the bank, holding that such offences harm the public interest.42
  • Corruption Cases: Proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act are almost never quashed on the basis of a compromise, as corruption is an offence against the state and society.40
  • Environmental Offences: Offences under environmental laws are also considered crimes against the community, and the scope for quashing based on private settlements is virtually non-existent, especially given the citizen suit provisions that empower the public to enforce these laws.46

Part III: Procedural Aspects and Remedies

Section 6: The Appropriate Stage for Invoking Quashing Jurisdiction

The power to quash criminal proceedings can be invoked at various stages of the criminal justice process, from the registration of the FIR to, in exceptional cases, even after conviction.

6.1 From FIR to Chargesheet

An accused can approach the High Court immediately after the registration of an FIR. At this nascent stage, the court’s inquiry is limited to the contents of the FIR and accompanying documents. If, on their face, they do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, the FIR can be quashed. However, the Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra has sounded a strong note of caution against premature interference.48 The Court held that High Courts should not thwart investigations and should refrain from passing blanket interim orders like “no coercive steps to be adopted” in a routine manner. The police must be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate the allegations.48

6.2 Post-Filing of Chargesheet

A significant procedural development was solidified by the Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court unequivocally held that a petition for quashing an FIR, filed under Section 482 CrPC, remains maintainable even if the police file a chargesheet during the pendency of the petition.52 This is a crucial safeguard that prevents the investigating agency from frustrating the quashing proceedings by hastily filing a chargesheet, thereby rendering the petition infructuous. The High Court is empowered to consider the challenge to the FIR as well as the subsequent chargesheet.

6.3 At the Stage of Framing of Charges

At the stage of framing charges, an accused has the statutory remedy of filing a discharge application before the trial court. However, the scope of a discharge application is narrower than that of a quashing petition.53 In a discharge plea, the court can only consider the material placed on record by the prosecution in the chargesheet.54 In contrast, in a quashing petition, the accused can bring extraneous material to the High Court’s notice to demonstrate that the proceedings are an abuse of process.53 The Orissa High Court, in a notable case, quashed proceedings even after the trial court had passed an order to frame charges, citing an inordinate nine-year delay in the commencement of the trial, which violated the accused’s fundamental rights.36

6.4 Post-Conviction (Exceptional Circumstances)

While extremely rare, the power to quash has been extended to the post-conviction stage in exceptional circumstances. The Kerala High Court held that criminal proceedings involving a non-compoundable offence could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC even after conviction, provided there was a settlement between the convict and the victim and the offence was primarily private in nature.56 This represents the outermost frontier of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and should be viewed as a highly exceptional remedy, not a general rule.

Section 7: Detailed Process of Criminal Quashing in the Calcutta High Court

Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines

The procedural nuances of filing a quashing petition can vary slightly between High Courts. The following is a detailed guide for the Calcutta High Court, based on its rules and established practice.

7.1 Nature of the Application

In the Calcutta High Court, a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS is treated as a Criminal Revisional Application and is assigned the case type CRR.57 These matters are heard by a Single Judge Bench on the
Appellate Side of the High Court.58

7.2 Drafting the Petition

A meticulously drafted petition is the foundation of a successful quashing application. It must contain:
  • Cause Title: Clearly stating the jurisdiction (“In the High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side”).
  • Memo of Parties: The petitioner(s) (the accused) must be arrayed against the opposite parties, which must include: (1) The State of West Bengal, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, and (2) The de-facto complainant/informant.
  • Pleadings: The body of the petition should systematically lay out the facts of the case, the details of the impugned FIR/complaint and criminal proceeding, the specific legal grounds for quashing (explicitly linking them to the principles from Bhajan Lal or other relevant doctrines), and a clear prayer to quash and set aside the proceedings.
  • Affidavit: The petition must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner, verifying the contents of the petition.
  • Annexures: It is mandatory to annex clear, legible copies of all relevant documents, including the FIR, the formal written complaint (if any), the chargesheet (if filed), any settlement deed, and any other documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner.60

7.3 Filing and Procedure

The process involves several distinct steps, which are summarized in the checklist below.
Step
Action Required
Key Documents
Relevant Rule
1. Drafting & Verification
Draft the CRR petition with all necessary pleadings, grounds, and prayers. The petition must be affirmed by the petitioner before an Oath Commissioner.
– CRR Petition – Vakalatnama – Affidavit of Petitioner
Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules 62
2. Filing
File the petition, along with all annexures, at the registry of the Appellate Side of the Calcutta High Court. This can be done physically or via the e-filing portal. 63
– Stamped Petition Set – Annexures
E-filing Manual and High Court Rules 63
3. Curing Defects
The registry will scrutinize the petition. If any defects are found, they must be cured by the advocate-on-record.
– Defect Sheet from Registry
Registry Practice
4. Mentioning for Listing
Once the petition is free from defects and numbered, the advocate must “mention” the matter before the appropriate bench (the Single Bench with the determination to hear criminal revisional matters) to get a date for the first hearing.
– CRR Number
Daily Cause List and Court Practice
5. Service of Notice
A copy of the petition must be served on the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta (representing the State) and on the de-facto complainant (Opposite Party No. 2).
– Petition Copy – Affidavit of Service
CrPC and High Court Rules
6. Hearing on Admission & Interim Relief
On the first date of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel will argue for the admission of the petition and for any interim orders, such as a stay of investigation or further proceedings. The State and the complainant will have the right to oppose.
– Petition – Oral Submissions
–

7.4 Interim Orders

While petitioners often seek an interim stay on the criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure has significantly impacted this practice.48 High Courts, including the Calcutta High Court, are now extremely circumspect about granting such relief. A stay will only be granted in the “rarest of rare cases” where a prima facie case for quashing is exceptionally strong and non-interference would lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. The court must record brief reasons for granting any stay. More often, the court may direct the accused to pursue other remedies, such as applying for anticipatory bail, rather than granting a blanket stay on the investigation.48

Section 8: Remedy Against Dismissal: The Special Leave Petition (SLP)

If the High Court dismisses the quashing application, the aggrieved party is not left without a remedy. The final recourse is to approach the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

8.1 Constitutional Basis and Scope

The power to entertain an SLP is derived from Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This is not a regular appeal as a matter of right but an extraordinary and discretionary power vested in the apex court to grant “special leave” to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order from any court or tribunal in India.66 Its purpose is to ensure that substantial and grave injustice is not perpetuated.

8.2 Grounds for Filing an SLP

An SLP against an order dismissing a quashing petition cannot be a mere re-argument of the facts. It must demonstrate that the High Court’s order suffers from a grave error of law or has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.68 Valid grounds include:
  • The High Court has ignored or misapplied the settled principles of law laid down in Bhajan Lal or other binding precedents.
  • The High Court’s decision is perverse, i.e., it is a decision that no reasonable judicial mind could have reached.
  • The High Court has failed to quash a proceeding that is manifestly attended with mala fides or is an abuse of the process of law.
  • The case involves a substantial question of law of general public importance that requires an authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court.
The successful appeal in Suman Mishra v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s refusal to quash, serves as a clear example of a meritorious SLP.27

8.3 Procedure and Limitation

Filing an SLP is a specialized process governed by the Supreme Court Rules:
  • Limitation Period: The SLP must be filed within 90 days from the date of the High Court’s impugned order.66
  • Advocate-on-Record (AOR): An SLP can only be filed through an Advocate-on-Record who is registered with the Supreme Court.67
  • Documentation: The petition must be accompanied by a certified copy of the High Court’s judgment, the quashing petition filed in the High Court, and all relevant annexures. It must also contain a list of dates, a statement of facts, and the precise questions of law that the petitioner wants the Supreme Court to consider.66

8.4 Locus Standi and Public Interest

Traditionally, only a party to the original proceeding could file an SLP. However, the Supreme Court has expanded this rule in exceptional cases. In the groundbreaking judgment of MR Ajayan v. The State of Kerala, the Court held that a third party, who was not part of the original proceedings, could file an SLP against a High Court order that quashed a criminal case.72 The Court permitted this intervention on the grounds of overriding public interest, as the original case involved serious allegations of tampering with court records, which affects the sanctity and integrity of the entire judicial process. This decision underscores that the Supreme Court can relax the rules of
locus standi to uphold the rule of law and prevent grave injustice that has wider societal implications.

Part IV: Thematic Analysis of Over 30 Landmark Judgments

Legal analysis of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in India, focusing on Section 528 BNSS and key Supreme Court guidelines

This section provides a detailed analysis of key judicial precedents that have shaped the law of quashing in India. The judgments are grouped thematically to illustrate the application of the principles discussed in the preceding parts.

Section 9: Foundational and Procedural Principles

  1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): This is the foundational judgment that laid down seven illustrative categories for quashing an FIR. It established a structured framework to prevent the misuse of criminal law for personal vendettas, emphasizing that the power should be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.13
  2. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960): An early and influential precedent that identified three major grounds for quashing: (i) a legal bar to the proceedings, (ii) absence of allegations constituting an offence, and (iii) no legal evidence to support the charge.39
  3. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012): This landmark ruling clarified the distinction between “compounding” of offences under Section 320 CrPC and “quashing” under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the High Court’s inherent power is wider and can be used to quash non-compoundable offences if the dispute is primarily private and the settlement serves the ends of justice.9
  4. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014): Building on Gian Singh, this judgment provided detailed guidelines for quashing non-compoundable offences based on settlement, emphasizing factors like the nature and gravity of the offence and the timing of the settlement.31
  5. State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019): The Court held that even serious offences like attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) could be quashed based on a settlement, but only after considering the specific facts, such as the nature of the injury and whether the dispute was purely private.9
  6. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021): A crucial judgment that curtailed the practice of High Courts granting blanket interim orders of “no coercive steps.” It strongly reiterated that the police have a statutory right to investigate and courts should not interfere prematurely unless no cognizable offence is disclosed at all.9
  7. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023): This judgment settled a vital procedural issue, holding that a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC remains maintainable even if a chargesheet is filed by the police during its pendency. This prevents the police from rendering the petition infructuous.52
  8. Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007): The Supreme Court held that in a petition for quashing an FIR, the High Court cannot call for and rely upon the investigation report, as its inquiry is limited to the allegations in the FIR itself.22
  9. Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat (2011): A key precedent cited in Abhishek, which affirmed the High Court’s power to quash proceedings even after the filing of a chargesheet.52
  10. Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977): This case clarified the relationship between the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction (Section 397 CrPC) and its inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC). It held that the bar on revision against interlocutory orders does not limit the High Court’s inherent power to intervene in cases of abuse of process.74

Section 10: Matrimonial and Family Disputes (Sec 498A IPC & Dowry Prohibition Act)

  1. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. (2025): The Supreme Court quashed a 498A IPC case, finding it to be a malicious “counter blast” filed by the wife two months after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings, highlighting the “ulterior motive” ground from Bhajan Lal.27
  2. X v. State of Maharashtra (2025): The Bombay High Court quashed a dowry harassment FIR against the husband’s relatives, observing a “tendency” to make “general and omnibus” allegations against the entire family to settle personal scores.23
  3. Calcutta HC Judgment (Feb 2025): The Calcutta High Court, while quashing an FIR against sisters-in-law, cautioned lower courts to be “extremely careful” with matrimonial complaints containing vague allegations against relatives who do not reside in the matrimonial home.24
  4. Calcutta HC Judgment (May 2023): In a case of clear abuse of process, the Calcutta High Court quashed a second FIR filed on the same allegations four months after the accused were acquitted in the first case, noting that no new cause of action had been disclosed.75
  5. Kalyan Panda v. State of W.B. (2023): The Calcutta High Court exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a 498A case due to the lack of specific allegations and the presence of material suggesting a multifaceted dispute, including the complainant’s psychiatric issues and ongoing domestic violence proceedings.21
  6. Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025): The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, though civil in nature, are handled by Criminal Courts, and therefore, the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS to quash them in appropriate cases.76
  7. J&K HC Judgment (Apr 2025): The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed an FIR in a matrimonial dispute based on a compromise, holding that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice overrides the statutory limitations on compounding offences under Section 359 BNSS.77

Section 11: Commercial, Financial, and Property Disputes

  1. Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024): The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings for cheating in a commercial dispute, emphasizing that a mere breach of contract or inability to pay dues does not constitute a criminal offence without an element of fraudulent intent from the outset.32
  2. Anil Bhavarlal Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The Court refused to quash an FIR in a case of bank fraud despite a settlement, holding that economic offences that affect the “public exchequer” and the financial system are crimes against society and cannot be quashed on the basis of a private compromise.42
  3. Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables (2025): The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot quash FIRs when larger economic offences, such as the creation of shell companies to siphon funds, are manifest, even if there is a history of civil transactions between the parties.43
  4. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (2023): The Supreme Court, allowing an appeal against a Calcutta High Court order, quashed an FIR in a property dispute that was essentially civil in nature but had been given a “cloak of criminal offence,” finding the allegations vague and insufficient.18
  5. Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd. (2024): A cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed because the complainant had deliberately suppressed material facts (the accused’s replies to the demand notice), which amounted to an abuse of the process of law.78
  6. H.N. Jagadeesh v. R. Rajeshwari (2025): The Supreme Court restored an acquittal in a cheque bounce case, setting aside the High Court’s remand order. The Court held that the complainant’s failure to prove essential procedural requirements, like the service of the statutory notice, was fatal to the case, and allowing another opportunity to present evidence was improper.79

Section 12: Other Specific Contexts

  1. Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025): The Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a serious, non-compoundable offence like Section 307 IPC in an FIR does not act as a bar to quashing if the allegations, injuries, and circumstances do not prima facie support such a grave charge.31
  2. Calcutta HC Judgment on Medical Negligence (2023): A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside charges of medical negligence, holding that complex issues of a doctor’s competence and adherence to medical protocols should be adjudicated by specialized bodies like the National Medical Commission, not consumer forums, and found “palpable wrongs” in the adjudication process.80
  3. Orissa HC Judgment (July 2025): The High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a nine-year-old case where the trial had not even commenced due to the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses, holding that the prolonged delay violated the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.36
  4. Delhi HC Judgment on Tablighi Jamaat (2025): The Delhi High Court quashed 16 chargesheets against Indian citizens accused of sheltering foreign attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the COVID-19 lockdown, bringing an end to proceedings that were widely debated.82
  5. MR Ajayan v. The State of Kerala (2024): In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court allowed a third party to file an SLP against a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings. The Court expanded the traditional rules of locus standi, reasoning that the case involved allegations of tampering with judicial records, which is a matter of grave public interest affecting the integrity of the justice system.72
  6. State of T.N v. R. Vasanthi Stanley (2016): This case serves as a key precedent where the Supreme Court declined to quash proceedings in a case involving the abuse of the financial system, reinforcing the principle that such offences have a broad societal impact.42
  7. Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017): The Supreme Court summarized the principles for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR based on a settlement, emphasizing that the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and its societal impact, especially in cases of serious and public wrongs like economic frauds.40
  8. Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997): The Supreme Court clarified that while a second revision is barred, the High Court can still exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, but must do so sparingly and be conscious of the fact that a lower revisional court has already applied its mind.54

Part V: Conclusion

Section 13: Concluding Remarks and Hashtags

13.1 Synthesis and Future Outlook

The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, now enshrined in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, remains one of the most vital safeguards in the Indian criminal justice system. It is a testament to the judiciary’s role not merely as an arbiter of law but as a dispenser of justice. The transition from Section 482 CrPC to Section 528 BNSS is one of legislative continuity, ensuring that the rich and nuanced jurisprudence developed over half a century remains the guiding force for High Courts.
This comprehensive analysis reveals a consistent judicial philosophy: the power to quash is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised with caution and self-restraint. It is a double-edged sword—a crucial tool to prevent the harassment of innocent individuals and the abuse of legal machinery for malicious purposes, yet a power that, if wielded indiscriminately, could undermine the statutory process of investigation and trial. The judiciary, through landmark pronouncements like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, has meticulously balanced these competing interests. It has established clear guidelines that allow for intervention when proceedings are manifestly unjust, vexatious, or legally untenable, while simultaneously respecting the statutory domain of the investigating agencies, as reinforced in Neeharika Infrastructure.
The evolving case law demonstrates the judiciary’s role as a gatekeeper, carefully distinguishing between private wrongs that can be resolved through settlement and public wrongs that demand state prosecution. In an era of increasing litigation, the High Court’s inherent power serves as a critical filter, ensuring that the criminal justice system is not clogged with frivolous cases or used as a tool for oppression, thereby truly securing the ends of justice.
Resources: An Expert Report on the Quashing of Criminal Proceedings by the High Court under Indian Law.pdf

Works cited

  1. Comparison of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023 and Code of Criminal Procedure, (CRPC)1973 – B&B Associates LLP, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://bnblegal.com/article/comparison-of-bharatiya-nyaya-suraksha-sanhita-bnss-2023-and-code-of-criminal-procedure-crpc1973/
  2. Section-512 BNSS – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 & equivalent Cr.P.C. Section, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.prashantkanha.com/section-512-bnss-bhartiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-equivalent-cr-p-c-section/
  3. Section 512 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101334521/
  4. BNSS Section 512 – Defect or error not to make attachment unlawful – Latest Laws, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/bnss-section-512-defect-or-error-not-to-make-attachment-unlawful/
  5. CrPC or BNSS: Applicability of S. 528 BNSS or S. 482 CrPC …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/10/sik-hc-crpc-or-bnss-section-528-section-482/
  6. Quashing of FIR: 482 CRPC & S. 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/quashing-of-fir-482-crpc-s-528-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023
  7. Section 528 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99044874/
  8. Quashing the FIR under Section 528 BNSS: Inherent Powers of the High Court to Prevent Misuse of Law – Advocate Himanshu Jain, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://advocatehimanshujain.com/fir-under-section-528-bnss-powers/
  9. section 482 crpc – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%20482%20crpc
  11. Section 482 CrPC – Gyan Sanchay, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://gyansanchay.csjmu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Section-482-CrPC.pdf
  12. DECODING THE INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION-482 CRPC, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://officeofpartapsingh.com/our-presence/f/decoding-the-inherent-powers-under-section-482-crpc
  13. State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1990 ) Case Analysis – Testbook, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/state-of-haryana-vs-bhajan-lal
  14. Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana & Others – Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/bhajan-lal-v-state-of-haryana-others/
  15. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1990) : case analysis – iPleaders, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-of-haryana-v-bhajan-lal-1990-case-analysis/
  16. The Importance of Bhajan Lal in the Powers of the High Court and Supreme Court Regarding the Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Etching the Path, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://etchingthepath.com/2024/09/21/the-importance-of-bhajan-lal-in-the-powers-of-the-high-court-and-supreme-court-regarding-the-quashing-of-criminal-proceedings/
  17. State Of Haryana V. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1990] – Delhi Law Academy, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.delhilawacademy.com/state-of-haryana-v-ch-bhajan-lal-1990/
  19. section 482 crpc doctypes: judgments – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%20482%20crpc+doctypes:judgments
  20. quash the fir doctypes: kolkata – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=quash%20the%20fir%20%20doctypes%3A%20kolkata&pagenum=1
  22. Supreme Court Ruling on Section 482 CRPC Inherent Jurisdiction, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://ksandk.com/corporate/section-482-crpc-jurisdiction-supreme-court/
  23. “It’s wife’s tendency to implicate husband and his … – SCC Online, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/20/bom-hc-section-498a-ipc-wifes-tendency-to-implicate-husband-to-settle-personal-scores/
  24. Be careful in criminal cases tied to matrimonial disputes: Calcutta HC – The Times of India, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/be-careful-in-criminal-cases-tied-to-matrimonial-disputes-calcutta-hc/articleshow/118225873.cms
  25. DELAY IN LODGING FIR CANNOT BE REASON TO QUASH FIRS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE WITH MORE THAN 3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT: A CASE ANALYSIS – Edu Law, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/56/DELAY-IN-LODGING-FIR-CANNOT-BE-REASON-TO-QUASH-FIRS-FOR-OFFENCES-PUNISHABLE-WITH-MORE-THAN-3-YEARS-IMPRISONMENT:-A-CASE-ANALYSIS
  26. wreaking vengeance – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=wreaking%20vengeance
  27. Suman Mishra vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 12 February, 2025, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97340294/
  28. Supreme Court quashes abetment to suicide case against husband’s in-laws over lack of mens rea – SCC Online, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/05/sc-quashes-abetment-case-husbands-inlaws-mens-rea-absence/
  29. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL ON 07th of Augus – Mphc.gov.in, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2024/MCRC/2625/MCRC_2625_2024_FinalOrder_07-08-2024.pdf
  30. Quashing of FIR in India: Legal Grounds and Process Explained – Finlaw Associates, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://finlawassociates.com/blog/quashing-of-fir-in-india-legal-grounds-and-process-explained/
  33. Sukhdeb Saha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2024 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76694053/
  34. Section 482 CrPC – iPleaders, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-482-crpc/
  35. A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Law Finder, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.lawfinderlive.com/archivesc/198581.htm
  37. quashing of fir doctypes: kolkata – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=quashing%20of%20fir%20%20%20%20%20doctypes%3A%20kolkata&pagenum=23
  38. Daljit Singh Alias Tota And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 February, 2023 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138725592/
  39. Quashing of FIR: Supreme Court Guidelines and Case Studies – Rajendra Law Office LLP, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://rajendralawoffice.com/quashing-of-fir-supreme-court-guidelines-and-case-studies/
  40. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 11.08.2023 Pronounced on: 16.08.2023 + CRL.M.C. 5720/2023 ABHISHEK @, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/SKS/judgement/19-08-2023/&name=SKS16082023CRLMM57202023_163749.pdf
  41. SECTION 482 CrPC-PROJECT | PDF | High Court Of Australia | Crimes – Scribd, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/725244588/SECTION-482-CrPC-PROJECT-1
  42. Supreme Court: Economic Offences Cannot Be Quashed Even if a …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.metalegal.in/post/supreme-court-economic-offences-cannot-be-quashed-even-if-a-settlement-exists-between-the-parties
  43. High Courts can’t quash FIR when larger economic offences are manifest: Supreme Court, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Apr/27/high-courts-cant-quash-fir-when-larger-economic-offences-are-manifest-supreme-court
  44. Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/
  45. Preliminary inquiry not mandatory in every case under Prevention of Corruption Act: SC, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/preliminary-inquiry-not-mandatory-in-every-case-under-prevention-of-corruption-act-sc/118507543
  46. Supreme Court Declines to Limit Environmental Citizen Suits – JD Supra, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-declines-to-limit-5558109/
  47. Supreme Court requires environmental clearance before projects start | India – Law.asia, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://law.asia/vanashakti-supreme-court-ruling/
  48. M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra …, accessed on July 21, 2025, http://vestralex.com/2021/04/15/m-s-neeharika-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra/
  49. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra – 2021 3 Supreme 531, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100073833
  50. Investigating Agencies deserve reasonable time to conduct investigation, Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC order quashing a criminal proceeding in haste – SCC Online, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/01/19/investigating-agency-has-the-right-to-conduct-investigation-and-reasonable-time-should-be-given-to-them-to-conduct-the-investigation-supreme-court-set/
  51. Supreme Court on Section 482 CrPC – Have the inherent powers of High Courts been diluted? | India Corporate Law, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/05/supreme-court-on-section-482-crpc-have-the-inherent-powers-of-high-courts-been-diluted/
  53. SC explains scope of proceedings in plea for discharge & quashing of criminal cases, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/sc-explains-scope-proceedings-plea-discharge-quashing-criminal-cases
  54. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1405/2019 STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/1920/1920_2018_11_1501_60277_Judgement_26-Mar-2025.pdf
  55. Quashing of FIR or Discharge Application – YouTube, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zzQkkCSLntc
  56. Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed At Post-Conviction Stage Invoking Power U/S 482 CrPC Upon Settlement Between Victim & Convict: Kerala High Court – Asia Law Offices, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.asialawoffices.com/7253-/criminal-proceedings-can-be-quashed-at-post-conviction-stage-invoking-power-u-s-482-crpc-upon-settlement-between-victim-convict-kerala-high-court/
  57. Calcutta High Court – Appellate side – Case Status : Search by Case Number, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/case_no.php?state_cd=16&dist_cd=1&court_code=3&stateNm=Calcutta
  59. Rules of High Court at Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226 of The Constitution of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23892089/
  60. Proforma for Compromise Quashing First of all for filing compromise quashing below-mentioned documentation is required: 1. Comp, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://bnblegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Proforma-for-Compromise-Quashing.pdf
  61. Quashing FIR Petition Under Sec 528 BNSS Format | PDF | Crimes – Scribd, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/811173769/Quashing-FIR-Petition-Under-Sec-528-BNSS-Format
  62. Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules, – CourtKutchehry, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?s_acts=Calcutta%20High%20Court%20Appellate%20Side%20Rules,
  63. eFiling Services 3.0 – Orissa High Court, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.orissahighcourt.nic.in/e-filing/eFiling_manual.pdf
  64. e-Filing services for online filing of cases, plaints, written statements, replies and various applications related to cases before any High Court or District Court of the country, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://filing.ecourts.gov.in/
  66. Special Leave Petition in Indian Judicial System – Law Senate, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.lawsenate.com/publications/articles/special-leave-petition-slp.pdf
  68. Special Leave Petition – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/ttp-constitution-of-india/special-leave-petition
  69. Special Leave Petition (SLP) – VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://vensolawoffices.com/special-leave-petition-slp/
  70. Special Leave Petition – How to File SLP | Procedure – Corpbiz, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://corpbiz.io/special-leave-petition
  71. SLP Filing in Supreme Court | Article 136 Guide and Procedure, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.duasnduas.com/resources/slp-filing-process-supreme-court-india/
  72. Third-Party Can File SLP Under Article 136 Against Quashing of …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://blog.firuzkhanlegalservicesllp.com/third-party-can-challenge-quashing-of-criminal-cases-with-slp-under-article-136-supreme-court/
  73. Neeharika Infrastructure – Digital Supreme Court Reports, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=Mjk3ODQ=
  74. Alternate Remedy and Inherent Powers of High Courts under the …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/03/26/alternate-remedy-and-inherent-powers-of-high-courts-under-the-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023/
  75. Calcutta High Court quashes FIR lodged under section 498A IPC – India Legal, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/calcutta-high-court-quashes-498a-ipc/
  76. High Court can Quash DV U/S 482 & 528 BNSS : SC as on 19 May 2025 | Men Welfare Trust, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.menwelfare.in/judgements/high-court-can-quash-dv-u-s-482-528-bnss-sc-as-on-19-may-2025/
  77. Section 528 Bnss – Your Ultimate Guide to Indian Legal News, Judgments, and Bare Acts – Court Book, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://courtbook.in/posts/tag/Section%20528%20BNSS
  78. Supreme Court: Cheque Bounce Complaint Quashed for … – Metalegal, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.metalegal.in/post/supreme-court-cheque-bounce-complaint-quashed-for-suppression-of-material-facts
  79. Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case – Legal Light Consulting, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://legallightconsulting.com/supreme-court-restores-acquittal-in-cheque-bounce-case/
  80. Calcutta High Court set asides medical negligence charges on finding palpable wrongs in the adjudication process – SCC Online, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/18/calcutta-hc-set-asides-medical-negligence-charges-on-finding-palpable-wrongs-in-the-adjudication-process-scc-blog/
  81. medical negligence doctypes: kolkata_app – Indian Kanoon, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=medical%20negligence%20%20doctypes%3A%20kolkata_app&pagenum=1
  82. Covid-19 Tablighi Jamaat congregation case: HC quashes charges against nationals for sheltering foreigners; 16 cases junked, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-19-tablighi-jamaat-congregation-case-hc-quashes-charges-against-nationals-for-sheltering-foreigners-16-cases-junked/articleshow/122630804.cms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get Appointment