Quashing Not Barred Post-Charge Sheet — Article 32 Can Be Invoked to Prevent Abuse of Law: Supreme Court

In a pivotal pronouncement delivered on October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified that courts retain the power to quash criminal proceedings even after the filing of a charge sheet, and that the Supreme Court can directly quash FIRs in exceptional cases under Article 32 of the Constitution, especially when allegations pertain to violations of fundamental rights.

The ruling, rendered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, came in a batch of writ petitions challenging multiple FIRs filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and has now become a definitive reiteration of the continued availability of judicial remedies against criminal abuse, even during later stages of proceedings.

"It Would Be a Travesty to Say That Proceedings Can Be Quashed at FIR Stage But Not After Chargesheet": Apex Court on Post-Chargesheet Powers

The primary objection raised by the State was that once a charge sheet had been filed and the trial court had taken cognizance, the Supreme Court ought not to entertain a petition under Article 32 to quash the FIRs or ongoing criminal proceedings.

Rejecting this objection, the Court held:

“It would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet.”

The Court noted that while courts must exercise restraint, especially when factual disputes are involved, there is no legal bar preventing courts from quashing proceedings even at advanced stages, provided the foundational defect is incurable and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

"Even Cognizance Taken on an Invalid Charge Sheet Cannot Sanctify an Illegal Prosecution": Statutory Incompetency Fatal to Case

The Court emphasized that once it is shown that the initiation of criminal proceedings itself is legally flawed, either for lack of jurisdiction or breach of a statutory precondition, such proceedings cannot be permitted to continue merely because the matter has reached the cognizance or trial stage.

Addressing this point, the Court observed: “To allow such proceedings to continue is to permit a legal fiction to override substantive justice. The competence of the complainant to invoke criminal machinery is a threshold question. If that is missing, the proceedings stand vitiated ab initio.”

Thus, in cases where statutory standing was absent under Section 4 of the unamended UP Conversion Act, the mere fact that a charge sheet was filed could not cure the foundational illegality.

"Extraordinary Power Under Article 32 Is Not Barred Merely Because Section 482 Exists": Court Asserts Concurrent Jurisdiction

The judgment further answered an important jurisdictional question — whether the Supreme Court should refrain from entertaining such petitions under Article 32 when a remedy under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) exists before the High Court.

The Court clarified that while the preferred route in ordinary cases is indeed to move the High Court, there is no constitutional bar on the Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 when fundamental rights are directly implicated.

“There is no bar for this Court... to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 for the purpose of quashing of criminal proceedings,” the Bench declared.

Relying on previous decisions such as Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Priya Prakash Varrier v. Union of India, the Court reinforced that Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, and cannot be judicially diluted through procedural constraints.

"Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Allowed to Proceed in Violation of Statutory Filters": Court Distinguishes from Neeharika Case

The State had placed strong reliance on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where the Court held that criminal investigations should not be routinely stayed at nascent stages. However, the present Bench distinguished that precedent by clarifying that Neeharika was not dealing with a case where the complainant was statutorily barred from filing the FIR in the first place.

In words that underscore the Court’s principled stand, the judgment stated:

“The restriction under Section 4 of the Act was not a procedural nicety but a substantive condition precedent... The failure to meet that condition renders the very initiation of criminal proceedings unsustainable.”

Hence, when an FIR is based on an incurable legal defect, courts are not only permitted but duty-bound to intervene, regardless of the stage of the case.

"Quashing Jurisdiction Exists to Prevent the Law from Becoming a Tool of Oppression": Supreme Court Upholds Principle of Justice Over Procedure

By invoking its constitutional power under Article 32, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that judicial intervention is not tied to the procedural calendar of a criminal trial. The availability of judicial remedies cannot be foreclosed merely because a charge sheet is filed or a Magistrate has taken cognizance, especially when the foundational legality of the case is in question.

Summarizing this critical point, the Court held:

“The purpose of the quashing jurisdiction is to prevent the criminal law from becoming a tool of oppression... It must be invoked to arrest injustice at the earliest stage, not deferred in deference to a technical progression of procedure.”

The Supreme Court Safeguards Justice Beyond Formalities

This judgment will now serve as a critical precedent for future cases where FIRs are challenged for statutory illegality or mala fides, even after a charge sheet has been filed. It clarifies that:

1. Quashing is not confined to the FIR stage, and

2. Supreme Court can exercise Article 32 powers directly where fundamental rights are implicated and statutory mandates are violated.

In a justice system often driven by procedural technicalities, this decision re-establishes that substantive justice and constitutional integrity must guide the courts’ approach. The ruling protects not just the accused in this case but strengthens the institutional duty of the judiciary to prevent abuse of criminal law.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025