Recently, the Supreme Court has clarified that a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR does not automatically become infructuous upon the filing of a charge-sheet. The Court held that the Bombay High Court misapplied its earlier ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh while disposing of such a petition.
In this case, the petitioner had moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an FIR registered in Solapur for cheating and criminal breach of trust. During the pendency of the petition, the police filed a charge-sheet. Relying on Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court dismissed the writ as infructuous.
The petitioner contended before the Court that the High Court had overlooked the fact that Section 528 BNSS had also been invoked, empowering the Court to quash not only the FIR but also the charge-sheet and even the order of cognizance, if any.
Accepting this argument, the bench observed, “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, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance.”
The Court noted that the Bombay High Court had “misread Neeta Singh, inadvertently omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity and consequently, misapplied the ratio of such decision to spurn the challenge laid by the petitioner resulting in a failure of justice.”
Accordingly, the Top Court set aside the High Court’s order, revived the writ petition, and directed it to be heard afresh by the appropriate bench. The special leave petition was disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the respondents.
Case Title: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13424/2025
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Dipankar Datta
Counsel for the petitioner: AOR Kisalaya Shukla, Adv. Satyam Pandey, Adv. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Krishna Kant Shukla, Adv. Awadhesh Kumar.
Counsel for the respondents: None
Picture Source :
