SC: Article 226 cannot be Invoked to Quash Chargesheet After Cognizance

-

SC: Article 226 cannot be Invoked to Quash Chargesheet After Cognizance

The Counsel Journal

48.3 K followers

By Advocate ABHISHEK J.

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgement clarifying the jurisdictional limits of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the quashing of charge sheets and FIRs once cognizance of the offence has been taken by the trial court. The ruling arose from the case of pradnya pranjal kulkarni v. state of Maharashtra & Anr. (SLP Cr. No. 13424 of 2025) decided on September 3, 2025, by a Bench Comprising Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Background

The Petitioner sough quashing of an FIR registered under section 420, 406, and 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of Constitution and Section 528 of of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The trial court had concluded investigation and filed a chargesheet. The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after the chargesheet was filed, holding the petition infructuous based on the Supreme Court precedent in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( SLP Cr. No. 13578 of 2024).

Core Legal Questions

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained to quash an FIR or Charge sheet after Cognizance of the offence has been taken, whether the appropriate remedy lies solely under section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC).

Supreme Court Analysis and Finding

The Court emphasized three Crucial points:

  1. Jurisdictional Distinctions Prior to and After Cognizance: The Court reaffirmed to settled legal positions that a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to quash FIRs or chagesheet only before a trial court takes cognizance of the offence. Once cognizance is taken, this remedy under Article 226 ceases to be available.
  2. Remedy Post Cognizance Under Section 528 BNSS: The Supreme Court clarified that after cognizance, Challenges to the FIR; Chargesheet or even the cognizance order itself must be pursued under the special jurisdiction conferred by Section 528 BNSS (similar to section 482 of CrPC). This Provision confers the High Court power to quash proceedings in the interest of justice, even post cognizance, provided the party files an application with sufficient pleadings raising a strong case for Quashing
  3. Misapplication of Neeta Singh Ratio: The Court noted a factual difference in the present case compared to Neeta Singh, wherein only Article 226 was invoked without invoking Section 482 CrPC or its BNSS counterpart. The ratio of Neeta Singh was thus inapplicable to the instant case where Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction was also specifically invoked before the Bombay High Court.
  4. Jurisdiction of Bombay High Court Division Bench: The Court confirmed the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs, charge sheets, and orders directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and Section 753 BNSS.

Supreme Court Order

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the writ petition as infructuous post charge-sheet filing. The case was remanded for fresh consideration by a constitutionally competent bench of the Bombay High Court with directions to examine both the FIR and charge-sheet quashing requests along with any order granting cognizance, under Section 528 BNSS, if the petitioner could establish a case warranting such relief.

Legal Significance and Practical Implications

This ruling clarifies the procedural pathway for litigants seeking quashing of criminal complaints after police investigation and charge-sheet filing:

  • Pre-cognizance: Article 226 writ petitions remain a potent remedy for quashing FIRs and charge sheets.
  • Post-cognizance: Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) is the correct legal recourse, empowering High Courts to quash ongoing proceedings or even cognizance orders on a substantive merits basis.

This jurisprudential clarification strengthens procedural propriety in criminal litigation and balances the constitutional writ safeguard with judicial trial authority.

Relevant Case Law Referenced

  • Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP Cr. No. 13578/2024
  • Constitution Bench decisions on Article 226 and cognizance
  • Provisions under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 420, 406, 409, 34)
  • Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
  • Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Judges on Bench

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment in this matter.

This article is authored by ABHISHEK J. Advocate.

Citation

Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, SLP Cr. No. 13424 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated September 3, 2025.

Location: Suresh Nagar Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474011, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment

-
Image
  Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the enforcement mechanisms for the recovery of unpaid maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court clarified that arrears of maintenance can be recovered by treating them as a levy of fine under Section 421 of the CrPC, ensuring that defaulters cannot evade their financial obligations. This ruling is a significant step toward strengthening the legal framework for the protection of dependents, particularly spouses and children, who rely on maintenance for their livelihood. Background of the Case The case involved an appellant wife, Poongodi, and her minor son, who filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC against the respondent husband, Thangavel, for maintenance. The trial court awarded maintenance of ₹300 per month, effective from February 4, 1993. ...
Read more

Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025: A Paradigm Shift in Legal Practice By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

-
Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025: A Paradigm Shift in Legal Practice By Abhishek Jat, Advocate     Introduction The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 , introduced by the Government of India, marks a comprehensive overhaul of the Advocates Act, 1961 . The legal profession has witnessed significant transformations over the past decades, necessitating reforms in legal education, disciplinary proceedings, and governance structures . The amendments address contemporary challenges , enhance professional accountability , and align India's legal system with global best practices . Notably, the bill proposes over 39 amendments and introduces several new sections , focusing on legal education reforms, enhanced disciplinary mechanisms, digital transparency, and electoral regulations . Key Provisions of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 1. Modernization of Legal Education (a) Introduction of Centers of Legal Education The bill formally defines a "Center o...
Read more

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

-
Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate     Introduction The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 891 of 2019), reaffirming the judicial interpretation of marital rape and unnatural offenses under Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for engaging in sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex, with his major wife, even in the absence of her consent. The ruling underscores the long-standing exception in Indian criminal law regarding marital rape and highlights judicial scrutiny over charges framed under Section 304 IPC. Background of the Case The appellant, Gorakhnath Sharma, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 376, 377,...
Read more