Case Law Details
Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The case concerns a challenge to an order of the Bombay High Court which had disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR on the ground that the petition had become infructuous after the filing of a chargesheet. The petitioner had invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the writ petition, the police completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet. Relying on a prior Supreme Court decision, the High Court held that once the chargesheet was filed, the writ petition for quashing the FIR had become infructuous, while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the High Court had jurisdiction to examine the matter even after filing of the chargesheet, especially since the petition invoked both Article 226 and Section 528 of the BNSS. It was argued that the High Court had misapplied the precedent relied upon, as the earlier decision was rendered in a different factual context.
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of its earlier decision and noted a clear factual distinction. In the earlier case, the writ petition had been filed only under Article 226, without invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, in that case, cognisance of the offence had already been taken by the criminal court. In such circumstances, the Court had held that the writ petition had become infructuous due to subsequent developments.
In contrast, in the present case, the writ petition invoked both Article 226 and Section 528 of the BNSS. The Supreme Court observed that even after filing of a chargesheet, if cognisance has not yet been taken, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR or chargesheet. Furthermore, even after cognisance is taken, the High Court retains power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR, chargesheet, and even the order taking cognisance, provided appropriate pleadings are made and a case for quashing is established.
The Court also noted that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction, as per the applicable roster, to hear criminal writ petitions involving quashing of FIRs, chargesheets, and related matters. Therefore, it was competent to examine the petitioner’s grievance on merits instead of dismissing the petition as infructuous.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had misread and misapplied the earlier judgment by failing to appreciate the factual differences and the broader jurisdiction invoked in the present case. This resulted in an improper rejection of the petitioner’s challenge and amounted to a failure of justice.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter. It directed that the writ petition be revived and considered afresh by the appropriate bench of the Bombay High Court in accordance with law. The special leave petition was disposed of at the admission stage, and any connected applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. A writ petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 19502 as well as under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233, was presented by the petitioner before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay4. In such writ petition, she sought quashing of a First Information Report5 under Sections 420, 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur, dated 12th September, 2024, bearing C.R. No.648 of 2024. The same has been disposed of by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by an order dated 1st July, 2025. The reasons assigned by the High Court read as follows:
“2) Learned A.P.P. on instructions from A.P.I. Ms. Radhika Kendre attached to M.I.D.C Police Station, Solapur, submitted that, during the pendency of present petition, the police have completed investigation and filed chargesheet before the trial Court on 14th May 2025.
3. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 13578/2024, Dated 15/10/2024, present Petition for quashing of F.I.R., after filing of chargesheet has become infructuous.
4. In view of the above and by reserving the remedy of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner, Petition is disposed off.”
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has placed before us the “Sitting List” of Judges of the Bombay High Court, effective from 9th June, 2025, circulated by the Registry. It appears therefrom that the Division Bench which disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order had the jurisdiction to hear, inter alia, the following matters:
3. “For admission, hearing, order matters and applications therein:
(A) All Criminal Writ Petitions and Applications for quashing of FIRs, C.R., Charge Sheet and challenging order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. PC / 175(3) of BNSS from the year 2023 onwards.”
(bold in original)
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the Division Bench had the jurisdiction to hear criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs, C.R. and Charge-Sheet under the BNSS and having regard to the fact that mere filing of a chargesheet under Section 193, BNSS does not render a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR infructuous, the order impugned is unsustainable in law.
5. The order in Neeta Singh (supra), relied on by the Bombay High Court, incidentally was passed by us. Since a question has been raised as to whether the ratio of the decision in Neeta Singh (supra) has correctly been applied by the Bombay High Court while disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner, the need has arisen to clarify the point.
6. There is a distinct factual dissimilarity between the writ petition presented before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad6 from which the special leave petition in Neeta Singh (supra) arose and the present writ petition, out of which this special leave petition arises.
7. The writ petition in Neeta Singh (supra) was only under Article 226 of the Constitution, as evident from the first sentence of the relevant order.
Moreover, a bare reading of paragraph 8 thereof reveals that the relevant Bench’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737 had not been invoked. Further still, the last sentence of the first paragraph records that cognisance of the offence had been taken by the relevant criminal court. It is in such circumstances that we had the occasion to uphold the order under challenge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the writ petition only under Article 226 of the Constitution was held to have become infructuous by reason of subsequent events, relying on several authoritative pronouncements of this Court including Constitution Bench decisions.
8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is evident that the same sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR quashed. It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of the FIR, but whether or not cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order extracted above. So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet 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 the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up. Significantly, it was reasoned by us in Neeta Singh (supra) that a judicial order not being amenable to challenge before a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution and there being no prayer either under Article 227 thereof or Section 482, Cr. PC, the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ petition under Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous.
9. However, in the present case, certainly the Division Bench could have examined the grievance of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR together with the charge-sheet following it, as well as the cognisance taking order, if any, since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked and the relief claimed could have been suitably moulded subject, of course, to the requisite satisfaction of the court that an order of quashing is warranted on facts and in the circumstances. We have no hesitation to hold that the Division Bench did have the jurisdiction to pass such an order as per the “Sitting List”.
10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court misread Neeta Singh (supra), inadvertently omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity as indicated above and consequently, misapplied the ratio of such decision to spurn the challenge laid by the petitioner resulting in a failure of justice.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned stands set aside. The special leave petition is disposed of at the admission stage, even without notice to the respondents, by ordering a remand.
12. The writ petition of the petitioner shall stand revived for being considered afresh by the roster bench of the Bombay High Court, in accordance with law.
13. Connected applications, if any, stand closed.
Notes:
1 Criminal Writ Petition No.4394 of 2024
2Constitution
3 BNSS
4 Bombay High Court
5FIR
6 Allahabad High Court
7 Cr. PC
Author Bio
