The High Court has inherent power to stop a criminal case that is an abuse of the court's process, or where continuing it would defeat the ends of justice. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) carries this power forward from Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). A petition can seek to quash an FIR, a complaint or the criminal proceeding as a whole.
Quashing petitions often arise where a business or family dispute has become a police case, or where the parties have settled. We act for accused persons, including companies and their directors, and for complainants who oppose quashing, before the Madras High Court.
The power under Section 528
Section 528 says nothing in the BNSS limits or affects the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders needed to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, a three-judge bench described the power as one of wide amplitude that must be exercised with great caution. No straitjacket formula regulates it.
The Bhajan Lal categories
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court listed, by way of illustration, categories of cases in which the power under Article 226 or Section 482 of the CrPC may be used:
- the allegations in the FIR or complaint, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie make out any offence;
- the FIR and accompanying material do not disclose a cognizable offence that justifies police investigation without a Magistrate's order;
- the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose any offence;
- the allegations disclose only a non-cognizable offence, which the police cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order;
- the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed;
- an express legal bar in the Code or the relevant Act prevents the proceeding, or the Act provides an effective remedy for the grievance;
- the proceeding is manifestly mala fide, or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance out of a private grudge.
Quashing on settlement in non-compoundable offences
Some offences can be compounded by the parties under Section 359 of the BNSS (formerly Section 320 of the CrPC). Gian Singh held that quashing on the basis of a settlement is a different power from compounding. The High Court may quash proceedings even in a non-compoundable offence where continuing them would be an exercise in futility and justice requires the dispute to end.
The Court drew a line. Settlement can have no legal sanction in serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity, other offences of mental depravity, offences of moral turpitude under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, and offences by public servants while acting in that capacity. Offences that overwhelmingly and predominantly bear a civil flavour, arising from commercial, financial, partnership or similar transactions, or from matrimony, dowry or family disputes, may be quashed where the wrong is essentially private and the parties have settled.
In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, another three-judge bench summarised the principles. It discussed earlier decisions where settlement with a bank did not justify quashing in cases involving forgery and siphoning of funds, because such economic offences affect society at large.
When a civil dispute is given a criminal colour
In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., the Supreme Court noted a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases to pressure the other side, and said such efforts should be discouraged. It also held that the existence or use of a civil remedy is not by itself a ground to quash. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence. A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the beginning of the transaction.
In Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2024), the Court quashed an FIR arising out of a breach of contract. It held that the dispute was essentially civil, had in any case been settled, and that continuing the case was an abuse of process.
Interim protection while the petition is pending
In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), a three-judge bench set limits on interim orders in quashing petitions. The police have a statutory right and duty to investigate a cognizable offence, and courts should not thwart it. Quashing is the exception, and an FIR is not an encyclopaedia that must disclose every detail. The power to stay investigation or to direct 'no coercive steps' is to be used only in exceptional cases. When the High Court grants such an order, it must give brief reasons and make clear what 'no coercive steps' means.
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi (2024 INSC 106), the Supreme Court applied these guidelines and set aside interim protection granted by a High Court. It repeated the guideline that the High Court should restrain itself from orders not to arrest or of 'no coercive steps', and that the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail before the competent court. Anyone who fears arrest while a petition is pending should consider anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.
What to place before the High Court
A quashing petition is decided mainly on the FIR or complaint as it stands, so the petition must show why those allegations, read as they are, do not make out the offence or why the case falls within a recognised category. A typical file contains:
- a certified or downloaded copy of the FIR, complaint or charge sheet;
- contracts, invoices, correspondence and records of any civil suit or arbitration, where the dispute is commercial;
- in a settlement case, the written settlement terms and proof that they have been carried out;
- any orders already passed in related proceedings, including bail or anticipatory bail orders.
Supreme Court decisions
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Lists seven illustrative categories in which an FIR or complaint may be quashed.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303
The High Court may quash non-compoundable cases of a predominantly civil or private nature on settlement, but not serious offences against society.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat(2017) 9 SCC 641
Summarises the settlement principles; economic offences with wider social impact are not quashed merely because the parties settled.
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.(2006) 6 SCC 736
Civil disputes should not be turned into criminal cases, but a civil remedy does not bar prosecution where an offence is disclosed.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra(2021) 19 SCC 401
Stay of investigation or 'no coercive steps' orders in quashing petitions only in exceptional cases, with brief reasons.
Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka[2024] 3 S.C.R. 740
An FIR arising from a breach of contract that was essentially civil was quashed as an abuse of process.
Questions
Which court can quash an FIR?
The High Court, under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) or under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Can an FIR for a non-compoundable offence be quashed after we settle?
Yes, in some cases. Gian Singh allows quashing where the offence is predominantly civil or private, such as commercial or matrimonial disputes. It does not extend to serious offences like murder, rape or dacoity, or corruption offences.
The dispute is about money owed under a contract. Is that enough to quash the case?
Not by itself. The court asks whether the allegations disclose an offence. A mere breach of contract is not cheating unless dishonest intention existed when the promise was made.
Will the High Court stop the police from arresting me while the petition is pending?
Only in exceptional cases. Neeharika held that 'no coercive steps' orders need brief reasons and should be rare, and the accused may be directed to seek anticipatory bail instead.
Can the High Court look at my documents and defence?
At the stage of quashing, the court does not ordinarily enquire into whether the allegations are true or reliable. Defences on facts are usually left for trial, as Indian Oil Corporation noted.
This guide is general information on Indian criminal law as at 21 October 2026. It is not legal advice on any particular case.