Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court

"Quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS (Old Section 482 CrPC) not maintainable without production of chargesheet and cognizance order" – Allahabad High Court  dismissing an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the new procedural law replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, citing lack of maintainability due to non-placement of chargesheet and cognizance order on record.

The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, akin to Section 482 CrPC, can only be invoked at the post-cognizance stage when the chargesheet and judicial cognizance order are brought on record. The ruling aligns with the latest precedent of the Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025, which marks a pivotal clarification in post-BNSS jurisprudence.

"So long as cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy" – SC in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni relied upon

The High Court began its analysis by acknowledging the primary relief sought — quashing of the FIR dated 14.06.2024, registered as Crime No. 192/2024 at P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut. The FIR alleged fraudulent execution of a sale deed using a forged power of attorney in relation to a property of Navyug Shahkari Avas Samiti. The petitioner claimed that the FIR was based on the same facts as an earlier FIR (No. 39 of 2022) and thus barred under the principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181].

However, the High Court held that even before addressing the merits of the second FIR or allegations of civil dispute being given a criminal colour, the application itself was procedurally defective and thus not maintainable under Section 528 BNSS, citing the recent authoritative interpretation of the Supreme Court:

"So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/chargesheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528 BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided same is placed on record..." – Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, Para 8.

Allegations of Forgery and Fraud — But Court Declines to Entertain Merits Due to Procedural Bar

In its petition, the applicant had raised multiple legal contentions:

• That the second FIR was barred as it stemmed from the same facts already covered in FIR No. 39 of 2022.

• That the dispute was essentially civil in nature and was being given a criminal colour to exert pressure.

• That the applicant could not be held liable for forgery as he was not the maker of the forged document, relying on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj [(2018) 7 SCC 581].

• That no ingredients of Section 420 IPC (cheating) were disclosed in the FIR.

• That civil proceedings under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act were already pending and a suit for cancellation of sale deed was initiated before the Arbitrator.

Despite these arguments, the High Court unequivocally declined to test their validity on merits:

“Since the application is not maintainable, therefore, the merit of the case cannot be gone into by this Court.”

High Court Reconciles Full Bench Precedent with SC Ruling: Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Remains Open

While the applicant invoked earlier Supreme Court rulings in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 11 SCC 673], G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636], and Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, the High Court clarified that those cases did not examine the question of maintainability under Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS) post-cognizance, and therefore were distinguishable.

Justice Sinha also considered the Full Bench ruling in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107, where it was held that High Court’s inherent powers are not to be exercised at the investigative stage unless mala fide or abuse of process by the police is evident. That ruling was read in harmony with the latest law:

“The power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the proper remedy prior to cognizance lies under Article 226 of the Constitution, not under Section 528 BNSS, unless the procedural threshold — i.e., filing of chargesheet and cognizance order — is satisfied and placed on record.

"Present application is not maintainable as the chargesheet and the cognizance order have not been brought on record"

In its closing observations, the High Court stated:

“From perusal of the prayers so made in the present application, it is clear that the applicant has simply sought for quashing the FIR and he has not placed the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken on the chargesheet by the competent Court. Thus, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra), since the chargesheet and the cognizance has not been placed on record, FIR cannot be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 528 BNSS (old section 482 CrPC).”

The application was dismissed purely on the ground of non-maintainability, without any finding on whether the FIR was a duplication or a misuse of process. The applicant was left to explore alternative remedies, notably under Article 226.

A Cautionary Tale for Procedural Compliance under BNSS

This judgment marks a significant development in post-BNSS criminal procedure, making it clear that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked in isolation to quash FIRs unless chargesheet and cognizance orders are produced before the Court. The ruling provides practical procedural guidance to litigants and advocates transitioning into the new BNSS regime.

Justice Sinha’s ruling is a judicial endorsement of procedural discipline, in line with recent Supreme Court trends that limit judicial interference at the pre-cognizance stage to constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: December 3, 2025