| R & D Law Chambers LLP
Practice is led by Ravish Bhatt | Advocate, Bar Council of Gujarat (G/504/2008) | Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England and Wales) | Solicitor of England and Wales (non-practising), SRA Registration No. 492 477 | ADIT, Chartered Institute of Taxation, London Published: 05 November 2026 | Last reviewed: 05 November 2026 |
This page is written against the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in force from 1 July 2024, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inherent power to quash is now in section 528 BNSS; the former section numbers appear in brackets. It describes the general law and Gujarat practice and is not legal advice on any specific matter.
Quashing is now sought under section 528 BNSS, not the section 482 that the profession knew for decades, and the section 482 label now means anticipatory bail. The inherent power itself is unchanged and the Bhajan Lal categories still govern. What has hardened is the restraint: after Neeharika the Gujarat High Court will not stay an investigation on a bare no coercive steps order, so the petition must clear the Bhajan Lal threshold on the FIR’s own terms.
This page is part of the firm’s criminal defence practice, which covers bail, quashing and early-stage defence together.
1. The power: section 528 BNSS
The High Court’s power to quash an FIR, a chargesheet or a complaint is its inherent power under section 528 BNSS, the successor to section 482 CrPC in identical language. The power is preserved, not conferred: it exists because the High Court is a superior court of record. A petition filed on or after 1 July 2024 is drawn under section 528 BNSS.
A point of genuine confusion is worth stating plainly. Section 482 of the BNSS is now the anticipatory bail provision; the quashing power that the profession knew as 482 is section 528. A quashing petition that still cites section 482 CrPC for a post-July 2024 filing risks being returned by the registry. The three purposes of the power are unchanged: to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, and to secure the ends of justice.
2. The seven Bhajan Lal grounds
The grounds are the seven illustrative categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which continue to govern quashing. In essence: where the allegations disclose no offence, where they are inherently improbable, where there is an express legal bar, and where the proceeding is manifestly actuated by malice or an ulterior motive.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court set out seven categories in which the inherent power may be exercised, while cautioning that the power is to be used sparingly and in the rarest of cases. They include allegations that, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence; allegations that are absurd or inherently improbable; an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceeding; and a prosecution manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive, but it remains the framework within which every Gujarat quashing petition is argued.
3. Quashing on settlement or compromise
Where the dispute is essentially private and the parties have genuinely settled, the High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice. This power, recognised in Gian Singh, is distinct from compounding under section 359 BNSS and turns on the nature and gravity of the offence.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that the inherent power to quash on the basis of a compromise is different in kind from the statutory power to compound an offence, and can extend to non-compoundable offences where the wrong is private in nature, such as offences arising from commercial, financial, matrimonial or civil disputes. It does not extend to serious offences against society, such as murder or rape, however the parties feel. The court weighs whether continuing the prosecution would serve any purpose once the dispute is genuinely resolved.
4. Can an FIR be quashed after the chargesheet is filed
Yes. The filing of the chargesheet does not oust the High Court’s power under section 528 BNSS. The power can be exercised even after the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken, because it exists to prevent abuse of process. What changes is the material before the court, not the jurisdiction.
In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the language of the provision that restricts the exercise of the power to a stage before the chargesheet, and quashed both the FIR and the chargesheet where the proceeding was an abuse of process. A petition is therefore not defeated merely because the investigation has concluded; the question remains whether the material, taken as it stands, makes out an offence.
5. What the High Court will not do: no mini-trial, no automatic stay
The High Court will not conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage or weigh the reliability of evidence. After Neeharika it will not stay an investigation or pass a bare no coercive steps order without reasons. Quashing is an exceptional remedy, and the court must not ordinarily stifle a legitimate investigation.
In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 INSC 253, a three-judge bench laid down a compendium of principles: the court examining an FIR cannot embark on an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations; it must not thwart an investigation at a premature stage; and interim orders directing that no coercive steps be taken are to be passed only in exceptional cases, with brief reasons, not as a matter of routine. The Court also recognised that an FIR can be an abuse of process where a civil dispute is converted into a criminal one to pressurise the accused, which is the opening a quashing petition must establish on the FIR’s own terms.
6. Quashing, discharge and acquittal: three different stages
Quashing under section 528 BNSS is a pre-trial remedy that tests whether the proceeding should exist at all. Discharge, before the trial court, tests whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. Acquittal follows a trial on evidence. A weak case is not always a case for quashing; the stage and the test differ.
Choosing the remedy is a strategic decision. Quashing is apt where the FIR or complaint, taken at face value, discloses no offence or is a clear abuse of process. Where the allegations do disclose an offence but the evidence is thin, discharge before the trial court may be the better route, because the quashing court will not weigh evidence. Confusing the two spends the strongest argument on the wrong forum.
7. Commercial disputes dressed as crime, and directors
A recurring category is the commercial dispute converted into an FIR for cheating or criminal breach of trust, often naming every director. Where the complaint discloses only a contractual default, or names a director by designation alone, it is a strong candidate for quashing as an abuse of process.
Neeharika recognised the conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal one as an abuse of process. Vicarious criminal liability of a director is not automatic: it arises only where a statute creates it and the complaint pleads the specific role the provision requires. The firm’s analysis of this question is set out in its articles on the vicarious liability of company directors for criminal offences and on vicarious liability under specific statutes.
8. Procedure and timing before the Gujarat High Court
A quashing petition is filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad under section 528 BNSS, read with Article 226 of the Constitution where the facts call for it. It can be filed once the FIR is registered and does not have to wait for the chargesheet. Interim protection may be sought, but only on reasons that meet the Neeharika standard.
The petition should annex the FIR and set out, category by category, why it falls within the Bhajan Lal grounds. Timing is relevant: an early petition, before the investigation has gathered material, is often stronger, though quashing after the chargesheet remains open on Anand Kumar Mohatta. Where urgent protection is needed, the petition must give the court specific reasons, because a bare request to stay the investigation will not meet the Neeharika threshold. The firm’s work before the Gujarat High Court is described on its Gujarat High Court page.
Quashing, discharge and acquittal compared
| Feature | Quashing (s.528 BNSS, High Court) | Discharge (trial court) | Acquittal (after trial) |
| Stage | Pre-trial | Before charge is framed | End of trial |
| Test | No offence made out, or abuse of process | No sufficient ground to proceed | Not proved beyond reasonable doubt |
| Evidence weighed | No | Limited | Full |
| Forum | Gujarat High Court | Trial court | Trial court |
Frequently asked questions
Which section applies to quashing an FIR after 1 July 2024, section 482 or section 528?
Section 528 BNSS. The inherent power that was section 482 CrPC is now section 528 BNSS, in identical language. Section 482 of the BNSS is the anticipatory bail provision. Cite section 482 CrPC only for a filing made before 1 July 2024.
Can an FIR be quashed on the basis of a settlement?
Yes, where the dispute is private in nature, such as a commercial, financial, matrimonial or civil matter, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. It does not extend to serious offences against society, such as murder or rape, whatever the parties have agreed.
Can the High Court quash after the chargesheet is filed?
Yes. In Anand Kumar Mohatta the Supreme Court held that nothing restricts the power to a stage before the chargesheet, and the FIR and chargesheet were both quashed. The filing of the chargesheet changes the material before the court, not the jurisdiction.
Will the High Court stay the investigation while the petition is pending?
Only in exceptional cases, with brief reasons, following Neeharika. A routine or bare no coercive steps order is exactly what the Supreme Court cautioned against, so interim protection must be justified on specific facts.
Is quashing the same as being acquitted?
No. Quashing ends the proceeding before trial, on the ground that it should not continue. Acquittal follows a trial on the evidence. The tests and the stages are different, and so are the consequences.
A company dispute has been turned into a criminal case against me as a director. Can it be quashed?
It may be, where the complaint discloses only a civil wrong, or names you by designation alone without pleading the specific role the statute requires for criminal liability. Such a complaint is a recognised candidate for quashing as an abuse of process.
How R & D Law Chambers works on these matters
R & D Law Chambers LLP advises on and appears in petitions to quash FIRs, chargesheets and complaints before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad under section 528 BNSS, including matters where a commercial dispute has been recast as a criminal offence. The practice is led by Ravish Bhatt.
Related reading: the firm’s criminal defence overview, its work before the Gujarat High Court, its economic offences and fiscal criminal defence page, and its analysis of the vicarious liability of company directors. A separate page deals with anticipatory bail before the Gujarat High Court under section 482 BNSS.
This page is general information on Indian criminal procedure and Gujarat practice, not legal advice. Whether an FIR can be quashed turns on the facts of each case. For advice on a specific matter, consult an advocate.