Introduction

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial clarification on the High Court’s jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, particularly after the filing of a charge-sheet and the taking of cognizance by a Magistrate. The judgment, Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025), is indispensable for practitioners navigating the transition from the old Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This ruling settles the conflict between the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution (Writ Jurisdiction) and the Inherent Powers preserved under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to the former Section 482 CrPC), ensuring that justice is not defeated by a mere misapplication of jurisdictional law.

The Case Overview: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

The High Court’s Error

The petitioner, Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, approached the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against her. Crucially, her petition invoked the twin jurisdiction of the High Court: Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

During the pendency of the petition, the police filed a charge-sheet. The Bombay High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), dismissed the petition, declaring it had become infructuous because the charge-sheet had been filed.

 

The Supreme Court’s Correction

The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, observed that the Bombay High Court had misread and misapplied the ratio of Neeta Singh.

The bench noted a "distinct factual dissimilarity":

In Neeta Singh: The petition was filed only under Article 226, and cognizance had already been taken by the criminal court, making the writ jurisdiction unavailable against a judicial order.

In Pradnya Kulkarni: The petitioner specifically invoked Section 528 BNSS. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to notice this crucial fact and thus resulted in a "failure of justice".

The SC set aside the Bombay High Court order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, asserting the High Court’s clear jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 528 BNSS.

Jurisdictional Blueprint: Article 226 vs. Section 528 BNSS

 

The judgment establishes a clear framework for how High Courts should deal with petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings, depending on the stage of the case and the jurisdiction invoked:

Case Stage	Applicable Jurisdiction	Scope of Quashing Power	Key Condition & Rationale
Pre-Cognizance	Article 226 (Writ)	FIR / Charge-Sheet	The High Court has clear jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings before the judicial process of taking cognizance commences.
Post-Cognizance	Section 528 BNSS (Inherent Powers)	FIR / Charge-Sheet AND Order Taking Cognizance	Once a judicial order of taking cognizance intervenes, the power under Article 226 is generally unavailable to challenge that judicial order. However, Section 528 BNSS remains available, empowering the court to quash the entire process, including the cognizance order, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process.

 

The Power of Section 528 BNSS

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is the High Court's statutory inherent power to:

Give effect to any order under the BNSS.

Prevent the abuse of the process of any court.

Secure the ends of justice.

The Pradnya Kulkarni judgment emphatically confirms that this inherent power is not limited by the taking of cognizance. It provides a robust remedial measure even against the subsequent judicial steps, provided a strong case is set up.

 

Practical Guide: How to File a Quashing Petition After the SC Ruling

For legal professionals and litigants seeking to quash an FIR, charge-sheet, or subsequent criminal proceedings in the High Court, the Pradnya Kulkarni case offers clear guidance:

1. Invoke Dual Jurisdiction (Essential Pleading)

Always ensure your petition explicitly invokes the High Court’s dual jurisdiction: Article 226 of the Constitution (read with Article 227, if applicable) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This prevents the High Court from summarily dismissing the petition as infructuous merely because the investigation is complete or cognizance is taken.

2. Monitor Case Status and Update Pleadings

If a charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken during the pendency of your writ petition, you must:

Acknowledge the subsequent event (charge-sheet and/or cognizance order).

Amend your petition (if necessary) to specifically challenge the judicial order taking cognizance, alongside the FIR/charge-sheet.

Place the cognizance order on record.

3. Establish a Strong Case for Quashing

 

The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. You must demonstrate that allowing the proceedings to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice or an abuse of the court’s process. Arguments should align with established precedents (like the R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, or Lalita Kumari guidelines).

By correctly invoking Section 528 BNSS and making proper pleadings, practitioners can ensure that the High Court retains the necessary authority to examine the merits of the case and deliver justice, regardless of whether the judicial phase has commenced.

SC Clarifies Quashing Jurisdiction: How to Challenge FIRs, Charge-Sheets, and Cognizance Orders under BNSS (Section 528 vs. Article 226)