Creditor and contributor of this article:

Patra’s Law Chambers:

About Us:

Patra’s Law Chambers is a law firm with offices in Kolkata &  Delhi, offering comprehensive legal services across various domains. Established in 2020 by Advocate Sudip Patra (Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Calcutta High Court) an alumnus of the Prestigious Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur ,with Post Graduate diploma in Business Law from IIM Calcutta, the firm specializes in Civil, Criminal, Writs,High Court Matters, Trademark, Copyright, Company, Tax, Banking, Property disputes, Service law, Family law, and Supreme Court matters.You can know more about us in here

Kolkata Office:

NICCO HOUSE, 6th Floor, 2, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (Near Calcutta High Court)

Delhi Office:

House no: 4455/5, First Floor, Ward No. XV, Gali Shahid

Bhagat Singh, Main Bazar Road, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055

Website: www.patraslawchambers.com

Email: admin@patraslawchambers.com

Phone: +91 890 222 4444/ +91 7003 715 325

The Constitutional Genesis and Jurisprudential Scope of Article 136

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) constitutes one of the most significant and expansive powers conferred upon the Supreme Court of India by the Constitution. Under Article 136, the Court is vested with the discretionary authority to grant “special leave” to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal within the territory of India.1 This power is uniquely plenary and overriding, as indicated by the non-obstante clause “Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter,” which allows the Court to transcend the standard limitations of appellate jurisdiction found in Articles 132 to 135.2

The historical evolution of Article 136 reveals its intent as a “residual” and “extraordinary” remedy. During the Constituent Assembly debates in 1949, the framers intentionally designed this provision to ensure that technicalities would not prevent the highest court from intervening when a grave miscarriage of justice occurred.2 One significant debate centered on whether the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over military tribunals; ultimately, Clause (2) was added to exclude courts-martial from the purview of Article 136, except in cases where jurisdictional excess or arbitrary procedure could be demonstrated.2 For the modern petitioner in an anticipatory bail matter, this constitutional history underscores that the SLP is not a routine second appeal but a request for the Court to exercise its “conscience” to rectify a manifest legal error by a High Court.5

In criminal matters, particularly those involving the apprehension of arrest, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that Article 136 should be invoked sparingly. The judgment in Pritam Singh v. State established early on that the Court would only interfere where the circumstances are “exceptional” or “outrageous enough to shock the basis of justice”.6 Consequently, an SLP challenging the denial of anticipatory bail must demonstrate more than just an alternative view of the facts; it must establish a “substantial question of law” or a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty under Article 21.7

The Statutory Paradigm Shift: Transitioning from CrPC to BNSS

A pivotal development for any petitioner seeking pre-arrest protection is the repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which took effect on July 1, 2024.9 This shift has profound implications for the legal grounds on which an SLP is drafted, as the governing provision for anticipatory bail has moved from Section 438 of the CrPC to Section 482 of the BNSS.8

The transition reflects a significant philosophical expansion of pre-arrest rights. Under the old Section 438(1) of the CrPC, a proviso allowed police to arrest an applicant while a bail plea was pending if the court had not granted an explicit interim protection. The BNSS deliberately omits this proviso, effectively removing the statutory justification for arrest solely because a court has not yet reached the hearing stage.9 This change suggests a legislative intent to treat the filing of an anticipatory bail application as a “shield” from the moment of registration. Furthermore, the BNSS has eliminated state-level restrictions, such as those in Uttar Pradesh, which previously barred anticipatory bail for offenses carrying death or life imprisonment sentences.9 The Allahabad High Court, in the 2025 ruling of Abdul Hameed v. State of U.P., affirmed that Section 482 of the BNSS applies retrospectively to obstacles removed by the new law, even if the offense occurred prior to its enactment.9

Comparative Statutory Framework for Anticipatory Bail

For a petitioner approaching the Supreme Court, these changes mean that arguments must now be framed within the context of the BNSS. Even if the investigation began under the CrPC, the procedural remedy of bail is governed by the law in force at the time of the application.9 The Supreme Court has already signaled that the principles of personal liberty established under the old code continue to inform the interpretation of the new framework.8

Comprehensive Procedural Roadmap: The Petitioner’s Path to the Apex Court

The process of filing an SLP is highly regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and requires strict adherence to technical and financial protocols.1 Unlike lower courts, the Supreme Court operates under a unique system where only a designated “Advocate-on-Record” (AOR) is permitted to file cases.1

The Mandatory Role of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR)

The AOR is a specialized class of advocate who has cleared a rigorous examination and is authorized by the Court to act as the legal agent for the petitioner. Under the Supreme Court Rules, while a Senior Advocate or any other lawyer may argue the matter, the AOR is the only person legally entitled to sign the petition, file a Vakalatnama, and handle communication with the Registry.1 The relationship between the petitioner and the AOR is critical; the AOR certifies that the facts presented are accurate and that the SLP does not contain any new facts or documents that were not part of the lower court records.3

Timelines and the Limitation Period

The limitation period for filing an SLP in criminal matters is generally 90 days from the date of the impugned High Court judgment.1 However, if the petitioner had applied for a certificate of fitness to appeal from the High Court and it was refused, the SLP must be filed within 60 days of that refusal.1 In computing these periods, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment is typically excluded under the Limitation Act.13

If an SLP is filed after the expiry of the limitation period, it must be accompanied by an “Application for Condonation of Delay.” This application must explain every single day of delay with documentary proof, such as medical certificates or administrative logs.1 The Court scrutinizes these applications strictly, and a “casual” explanation often leads to threshold dismissal.17

Mandatory Document Checklist and Arrangement

The Supreme Court Registry maintains a “Scrutiny Assistant Check List” that every petition must pass before it is listed.18 Missing documents or improper formatting can lead to the matter being classified as an “unregistered case”.7

Strategic Drafting: Substantiating the “Special” Nature of the Leave

The drafting of an SLP is more than a mere recitation of facts; it is a persuasive legal exercise designed to convince the Bench that the case warrants extraordinary intervention.7 Many petitioners make the mistake of treating the SLP as an “appeal by right,” but the Supreme Court has clarified that it is a “request for leave” that the Court may deny without hearing the merits if no substantial question of law is raised.17

Framing the Questions of Law

The “Questions of Law” section must be formulated with precision. Effective questions typically address:

• Whether the High Court ignored binding Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Sibbia or Sushila Aggarwal) when denying bail.7
• Whether the High Court failed to consider the “tripartite test” of bail: flight risk, evidence tampering, and influence over witnesses.11
• Whether the denial of anticipatory bail in a case of commercial or civil nature constitutes a manifest error of law.7

Grounds for Special Leave

The grounds section should focus on “legal perversity” or a “misreading of evidence” that has led to a grave miscarriage of justice.5 Emotional narratives are generally avoided in favor of “speaking documents” that highlight constitutional infirmities or jurisdictional errors.17 For example, if a petitioner was denied bail solely based on the “seriousness of the offense” without the High Court examining the prima facie lack of evidence, this constitutes a strong ground for interference under Article 136.8

The Doctrine of Parity and Disclosure

Petitioners must maintain “candor” before the Court. This includes a mandatory declaration that no other petition has been filed against the same order and a full disclosure of any prior bail rejections.1 Furthermore, the principle of “parity” is a vital tool; if co-accused individuals with identical or more severe allegations have been granted protection, the petitioner should highlight this to demonstrate a violation of Article 14.5

Registry Scrutiny and the Defect-Curing Process

After filing—whether through the physical counter or the e-filing portal—the Supreme Court Registry examines the petition for “filing defects”.1 Common procedural lapses that lead to objections include:

• Improper pagination or non-consecutive numbering of paragraphs.7
• Incomplete Vakalatnama (e.g., missing mobile numbers or emails of the parties).18
• Non-certified annexures or failure to file an application for exemption from filing a certified copy.7
• Inconsistency in the description of the impugned judgment across different documents.18

The AOR is notified of these defects and must “cure” them within the prescribed time limit. Failure to remove defects can result in the petition being dismissed for “non-prosecution”.7 Once the Registry is satisfied that the petition complies with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the case is assigned a regular registration number and moves to the “Admission Stage”.7

The Mechanism for Interim Protection and Notice

The primary objective for most petitioners filing an SLP is to secure immediate protection from arrest. The Supreme Court has wide powers to grant ad-interim relief during the pendency of the petition.14

Issuance of Notice to the State

If the Court finds a prima facie case after a preliminary hearing, it “issues notice” to the respondent (usually the State Government or the prosecuting agency).15 In urgent matters, the Court often grants interim protection simultaneously with the issuance of notice.21 This protection typically directs that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the next date of hearing or until the final disposal of the SLP, contingent upon the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.23

The Role of the Bench Sitting Singly

While most Supreme Court matters are heard by a Bench of at least two Judges, the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, have reinforced the power of a Single Judge nominated by the Chief Justice to hear and finally dispose of SLPs arising out of the grant or rejection of bail and anticipatory bail.24 This administrative efficiency ensures that matters involving personal liberty can be heard more quickly, often within 1-3 weeks of filing.21

Addressing High Court Adjournments without Protection

The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of High Courts that adjourn anticipatory bail pleas for long periods without granting or refusing interim relief. In Sumin v. State of Haryana (2025) and Prabhu Narayan Ram v. State of U.P., the Court held that such a course of action violates established legal principles.23 When a person is before the Court in a matter of personal liberty, they are entitled to a decision on interim protection “one way or the other” rather than an indefinite adjournment.22

Analyzing Judicial Benchmarks: Landmark Precedents on Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court’s intervention in bail matters is guided by several cornerstone judgments that have interpreted the scope of pre-arrest protection under Section 438 CrPC and now Section 482 BNSS.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)

This Constitution Bench judgment remains the “fountainhead” of anticipatory bail law. It established that the power to grant such bail is “extraordinary” and should not be hedged by restrictive conditions not found in the statute.11 Importantly, it held that an FIR is not a mandatory prerequisite for filing; a “credible apprehension” based on a complaint or inquiry is sufficient to move the court.8

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011)

In Mhetre, the Court emphasized that personal liberty is a precious constitutional right that cannot be curtailed merely because an offense is serious.8 It provided a comprehensive list of factors for courts to consider, such as the petitioner’s antecedents and the likelihood of flight. It also clarified that anticipatory bail is intended to prevent the “harassment and humiliation” that an accused may suffer if arrested and subsequently released.8

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)

This judgment settled the debate regarding the duration of pre-arrest protection. It held that anticipatory bail does not end upon the filing of a charge sheet but generally continues until the end of the trial.8 This ruling provides long-term security for petitioners, ensuring they are not forced to seek fresh bail at every stage of the criminal proceeding.

Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

This recent decision addressed the bar on granting bail to “proclaimed offenders” (those declared as absconding under Section 82 CrPC/BNSS). While historically such persons were denied relief, the Court in Asha Dubey clarified that there is no “absolute and inflexible bar”.25 The Court must examine the facts sensitivity, as a proclamation may sometimes result from procedural lapses or a lack of knowledge of the proceedings.25

Financial Logistics and the Caveat System

#image_title

Petitioners must manage the financial and strategic risks associated with Supreme Court litigation, including the “Caveat” mechanism used by opponents.

Fee Schedule and Legal Aid

The court fees for filing an SLP are relatively modest, typically INR 1,500, with an additional INR 200 for miscellaneous applications like those for interim stay or exemption.3 However, the cost of professional representation can be substantial, often ranging from INR 25,000 to several lakhs depending on the counsel’s seniority and the case’s complexity.7

The Role of the Caveat

A “Caveat” is a legal notice filed by a party who has succeeded in the High Court and expects the opponent to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.26 If a Caveat is active, the Supreme Court cannot grant an ex-parte order (an order without hearing both sides) in favor of the petitioner.26 A Caveat is valid for 90 days, and the “Caveatee” (the petitioner) must serve a copy of the petition to the “Caveator” (the opponent) before the matter is listed.27 For a petitioner seeking anticipatory bail, checking the “Caveat Search” portal is essential to avoid being blindsided by an opponent’s presence at the first hearing.29

Modern Administrative Reforms (2025-2026): Streamlining Justice

As of late 2025 and 2026, the Supreme Court has introduced several circulars to standardize court management and ensure “timely access to justice”.30

Standardized Order of Priority for Listing

Under Circular F. No. 28/Judl./2025, the Chief Justice of India directed a 16-category order of priority for the Miscellaneous days causelist.30 Bail matters are now ranked third in priority, ensuring they are heard early in the day’s proceedings.

The Online Appearance Slip Portal and Argument Timelines

To optimize court hours, the Court has introduced a “Standard Operating Procedure” (SOP) under Circular F. No. 29/Judl./2025.30 Advocates must now submit their expected oral argument timelines through the “Online Appearance Slip” portal at least one day before the hearing. Counsel are also required to file a concise written submission (not exceeding five pages) and serve it on the opposite side at least three days prior to the hearing.30 These reforms suggest that the petitioner’s legal team must be exceptionally well-prepared and concise to maximize their time before the Bench.

Conclusion: Strategic Synthesis for the Petitioner

Filing an SLP for anticipatory bail is a multifaceted challenge that requires navigating the high threshold of Article 136 while mastering the procedural nuances of the Supreme Court Rules. The transition to Section 482 of the BNSS has created a more “pro-liberty” environment by removing previous statutory hurdles, such as the arrest proviso during the pendency of a plea and restrictive state amendments.9 However, the success of a petition remains contingent on the AOR’s ability to frame a “substantial question of law” and demonstrate that the High Court’s refusal of bail amounts to a manifest illegality.5

The petitioner must approach the Court with complete transparency, ensuring that every claim is supported by the lower court records and that all procedural defects are cured swiftly to avoid delays.13 By leveraging parity arguments, highlighting humanitarian grounds, and utilizing the new priority listing rules for 2026, a petitioner can effectively seek the Supreme Court’s protection to uphold the sanctity of personal liberty.21 The Supreme Court remains the “court of conscience,” and through a well-drafted SLP, it continues to serve as a vital safeguard against arbitrary arrest and the miscarriage of justice in the criminal justice system.5

Works cited

1. How to File an SLP in the Supreme Court of India – Sheokand Legal, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://sheokandlegal.com/articles/how-to-file-an-slp-in-the-supreme-court-of-india/
2. Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court – Constitution of India, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-136-special-leave-to-appeal-by-the-supreme-court/
3. SLP Filing Supreme Court – SSRANA, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://ssrana.in/litigation/special-leave-petition-india/slp-special-leave-petition-filing-supreme-court/
4. How to File Special Leave Petition In Supreme Court – Advocate Kapil Chandna, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://kapilchandna.legal/special-leave-petitions-in-supreme-court-of-india-2/
5. in the supreme court of india, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/9622/9622_2010_3_1501_58346_Judgement_09-Jan-2025.pdf
6. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS, AN IMPEDIMENT TO JUSTICE: NEED FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO ENSURE EFFICIENT TIME ALLOCATION OF THE COURT – Manupatra, accessed on April 8, 2026, http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/23DCCFF6-CEA5-4494-9877-40F3C2ABD219.pdf
7. How to File an SLP in Supreme Court of India – Expert Guide, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://patronslegal.com/blogs/how-to-file-an-slp-in-the-supreme-court-of-india/
8. Anticipatory Bail Application Under BNSS 2026: Format, Grounds & Filing – LawSikho, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://lawsikho.com/blog/anticipatory-bail-application/
9. Anticipatory Bail Under BNSS: Section 482 Explained [2026 Updated] – iPleaders Blog, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://blog.ipleaders.in/anticipatory-bail-under-bnss-section-482/
10. Anticipatory Bail Under BNSS: What Changed in 2025 – Legal Articles – Free Law, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Anticipatory-Bail-Under-BNSS-What-Changed-in-2025
11. Anticipatory Bail 2026: Section 482 BNSS, Grounds & Process – LawSikho.com, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://lawsikho.com/blog/anticipatory-bail/
12. Supreme Court Rules, 2013., accessed on April 8, 2026, https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2014/07/Supreme-Court-Rules-2013.pdf
13. SLP in India | Special Leave Petition Process – S.S. Rana & Co., accessed on April 8, 2026, https://ssrana.in/ufaqs/special-leave-petition-slp-india/
14. What documents are required to file an anticipatory bail petition before the Supreme Court? – LawyerChennai.com, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.lawyerchennai.com/legal-advice/what-documents-are-required-to-file-an-anticipatory-bail-petition-before-the-supreme-court/
15. SLP Filing in Supreme Court | Article 136 Guide and Procedure, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://duasnduas.com/resources/slp-filing-process-supreme-court-india/
16. How to File a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India – Lawyer No, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://aorsupremecourt.com/how-to-file-a-special-leave-petition-in-the-supreme-court-of-india
17. Common Mistakes That Lead to Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court of India – Advocate on Record (AOR), accessed on April 8, 2026, https://aorbrijeshgupta.com/common-mistakes-that-lead-to-dismissal-of-special-leave-petitions-in-the-supreme-court-of-india/
18. Default List | Supreme Court of India, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.sci.gov.in/default-list/
19. Procedure – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.scobserver.in/about/supreme-court-of-india/procedure/
20. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) in Supreme Court of India – Legal …, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://legallightconsulting.com/special-leave-petition-criminal-in-supreme-court-of-india/
21. How To Obtain Bail From The Supreme Court Of India: Complete Process Explained, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.leadindia.law/blog/en/how-to-obtain-bail-from-the-supreme-court-of-india-complete-process-explained/
22. 1 ITEM NO.17 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Pe – LiveLaw, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/27982022311733300order21-feb-2022-410463.pdf
23. SC Protects Man Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail, Says HC Should Have Considered Interim Relief at Admission Stage – LawBeat, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/sc-protects-man-despite-pending-anticipatory-bail-says-hc-should-have-considered-interim-relief-at-admission-stage-1532123
24. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45279932/
25. Anticipatory Bail for Proclaimed Offenders: The Evolution of Law, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.livelaw.in/articles/anticipatory-bail-law-evolution-521303
26. File Caveat Petition in the supreme court of India | Taps9, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://taps9.com/file-caveat-petition-in-the-supreme-court-of-india/
27. Caveat Petition – Prevent Legal Action with Quick Filing – Corpbiz, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://corpbiz.io/caveat-petition
28. Caveat Petition in India – Benefits, Documents and Procedure – Legal Light Consulting, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://legallightconsulting.com/caveat-petition-in-india-benefits-documents-and-procedure/
29. Caveat Search – eCourt India Services, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v6/?p=caveat_search/index
30. Supreme Court: Circular on Cause List Order and Oral Argument …, accessed on April 8, 2026, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/31/supreme-court-circular-cause-list-oral-arguments-timeline-scc-times/

The post Complete Guide to Filing an SLP for Anticipatory Bail in the Supreme Court first appeared on Patras Law Chamber.

• Creditor and contributor of this article:

  Patra’s Law Chambers:

  About Us:

  Patra’s Law Chambers is a law firm with offices in Kolkata &  Delhi, offering comprehensive legal services across various domains. Established in 2020 by Advocate Sudip Patra (Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Calcutta High Court) an alumnus of the Prestigious Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur ,with Post Graduate diploma in Business Law from IIM Calcutta, the firm specializes in Civil, Criminal, Writs,High Court Matters, Trademark, Copyright, Company, Tax, Banking, Property disputes, Service law, Family law, and Supreme Court matters.You can know more about us in here

  Kolkata Office:

  NICCO HOUSE, 6th Floor, 2, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (Near Calcutta High Court)

  Delhi Office:

  House no: 4455/5, First Floor, Ward No. XV, Gali Shahid

  Bhagat Singh, Main Bazar Road, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055

  Website: www.patraslawchambers.com

  Email: admin@patraslawchambers.com

  Phone: +91 890 222 4444/ +91 7003 715 325

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

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

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

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

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.

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

2.1 Introduction to the Landmark Judgment

2.2 Detailed Examination of the Seven Illustrative Categories

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

3.1 Absence of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

3.2 Disputes of a Predominantly Civil Nature

• 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

4.1 Malicious Prosecution and Personal Vengeance

4.2 Inordinate and Unexplained Delay

Section 5: Quashing Based on Settlement and Compromise

5.1 The Doctrine of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

5.2 Application to Non-Compoundable Offences

5.3 Limitations in Heinous and Socio-Economic 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

6.1 From FIR to Chargesheet

6.2 Post-Filing of Chargesheet

6.3 At the Stage of Framing of Charges

6.4 Post-Conviction (Exceptional Circumstances)

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

7.1 Nature of the Application

7.2 Drafting the Petition

• 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

7.4 Interim Orders

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

8.1 Constitutional Basis and Scope

8.2 Grounds for Filing an SLP

• 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.

8.3 Procedure and Limitation

• 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

Part IV: Thematic Analysis of Over 30 Landmark Judgments

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)

11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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

18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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

24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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

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
10. Section 482 – India Code, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_000010_197402_1517807320555§ionId=22899§ionno=482&orderno=532
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/
18. In Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2022-SC-Jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC is …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://legiteye.com/in-criminal-appeal-no256-of-2022-sc-jurisdiction-us-482-crpc-is-to-be-exercised-sparingly-with-caution-for-securing-ends-of-justice-and-only-in-cases-where-refusal-to-exercise-that-power-may-result-in-abuse-of-process-of-law-sc-justices-ajay-rastogi-ct-ravikumar-30-01-2023/
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
21. Calcutta High Court quashes Section 498A IPC complaint – SCC Online, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/08/calcutta-hc-quashes-complaint-under-section-498a-of-the-ipc-on-lack-of-specific-allegations-scc-blog-legal-research/
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/
31. Quashing of FIR – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/quashing-of-fir-naushey-ali-v-state-of-up/
32. Quashing Criminal Proceedings in Commercial Disputes: Lalit …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/quashing-criminal-proceedings-in-commercial-disputes:-lalit-chaturvedi-v.-state-of-uttar-pradesh/view
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
36. Trial delay forces HC to quash criminal proceedings against 2, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/trial-delay-forces-hc-to-quash-criminal-proceedings-against-2/articleshow/122668031.cms
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/
52. High Court can entertain Section 482 Petition to quash FIR even if …, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://bonumlex.com/high-court-can-entertain-section-482-petition-to-quash-fir-even-if-chargesheet-has-been-filed-during-its-pendency-supreme-court/
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
58. Case Status – eCourt India High Courts Services, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/index_highcourt.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/
65. Untitled – S3waas, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec057d2a383e54274888b4b73b97e1aa/uploads/2024/01/2024011197.pdf
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
67. SLP Filing Supreme Court – SSRANA, accessed on July 21, 2025, https://ssrana.in/litigation/special-leave-petition-india/slp-special-leave-petition-filing-supreme-court/
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

The post Quashing of Criminal Cases in Calcutta High Court first appeared on Patras Law Chamber.