Beyond Article 226: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Quashing FIRs After Cognizance 

The Supreme Court of India has definitively ruled that the High Courts’ writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to quash an FIR or chargesheet once a competent court has taken cognizance of the offense, marking a crucial procedural shift from the investigative to the judicial phase; at this point, the sole and appropriate remedy is to invoke the statutory power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which allows the High Court to quash the proceedings, including the cognizance order itself, provided a strong factual and legal case is made out.

This judgment, which led the Supreme Court to set aside a Bombay High Court order that had mistakenly dismissed a petition as infructuous merely because a chargesheet was filed, provides critical clarity on the hierarchy of legal remedies and reinforces the need for litigants to choose the correct procedural path based on the stage of their case.

Beyond Article 226: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Quashing FIRs After Cognizance 

In a definitive judgment that recalibrates the boundaries of constitutional and statutory powers in criminal law, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a clear, bright line for High Courts exercising their writ jurisdiction. The ruling in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni versus State of Maharashtra establishes a crucial procedural milestone: once a criminal court takes cognizance of an offence, the door for quashing an FIR or charge sheet under Article 226 of the Constitution slams shut. The only key that remains is under Section 528 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 

This decision, delivered by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra on September 3, 2025, is far more than a procedural technicality. It is a masterclass in judicial discipline, reinforcing the hierarchy of remedies and ensuring that the extraordinary power of constitutional writs is not used to bypass specific statutory mechanisms designed by Parliament. 

The Core Legal Principle: A Shift in Remedial Jurisdiction 

The Supreme Court’s holding can be distilled into a two-stage test: 

• Pre-Cognizance Stage: While an investigation is ongoing, or even after a charge sheet is filed but before a magistrate has applied its judicial mind to take cognizance, a petitioner can approach the High Court under Article 226 seeking the quashing of an FIR or the charge sheet. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the old CrPC (now mirrored in Section 528 of the BNSS) are also available, but the constitutional route remains open. 

• Post-Cognizance Stage: The moment a competent court passes a judicial order taking cognizance of the offence, the game changes. The filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance order mark a formal transition from the investigative phase to the judicial phase. At this point, the remedy under Article 226 for quashing the FIR/charge sheet is “no longer available.” The sole and appropriate remedy is to invoke the statutory power under Section 528 of the BNSS. 

The Court emphasized that under Section 528, the High Court has the expansive power to quash not only the FIR or the charge sheet but also the order of cognizance itself, provided the petitioner specifically challenges it with strong pleadings and makes out a compelling factual and legal case for quashing. 

Unpacking the Case: How the Bombay High Court Erred 

The Supreme Court’s ruling came while setting aside an order from the Bombay High Court. The facts provide a perfect illustration of the legal misstep: 

• An FIR was registered in Solapur under sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the IPC. 

• The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 to quash the FIR. 

• During the pendency of this writ petition, the investigation concluded, and a charge sheet was filed before the trial court on May 14, 2025. 

• The Bombay High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that the filing of the charge sheet rendered the writ petition “infructuous” and dismissed it. 

The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed. It clarified that the Bombay High Court had “misread and misapplied” the Neeta Singh precedent. The key distinction was that the High Court treated the filing of the charge sheet as the terminating event for a writ petition. The Supreme Court corrected this: the terminating event is not the mere filing of the charge sheet, but the judicial act of taking cognizance based on that charge sheet. 

The Bombay High Court’s failure to recognize this distinction and its refusal to “mould the relief” and consider the petition under the lens of Section 528 of the BNSS led to a “failure of justice.” 

The Deeper Insight: Why This Distinction Matters 

This judgment is not merely pedantic; it is rooted in profound principles of our legal system: 

• Respect for Judicial Hierarchy and Comity: Once a judicial officer (a Magistrate) has applied his mind and taken cognizance, a higher court (the High Court) should be slow to interfere through a constitutional writ against a lower court’s order. The proper channel is to use the statutory power (Section 528) explicitly granted to it by the code of criminal procedure, which is a more tailored instrument for the job. Using Article 226 in such a scenario would undermine the authority of the lower judiciary. 

• Preventing Abuse of Extraordinary Power: A writ under Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy meant for exceptional circumstances where there is a blatant violation of fundamental rights or a patent lack of jurisdiction. Allowing it to be used after cognizance would effectively permit litigants to bypass the specific, well-defined grounds and careful scrutiny required under Section 528, turning the constitutional power into a common alternative rather than an extraordinary last resort. 

• Clarity and Procedural Certainty: The judgment provides much-needed clarity for lawyers and litigants. It creates a predictable roadmap: Before cognizance, you have two potential paths (Article 226 or Section 528). After cognizance, you have one clear path (Section 528). This eliminates forum shopping and strategic delays based on ambiguous jurisdiction. 

• The Doctrine of “Moulding the Relief”: A crucial takeaway for practicing advocates is the Court’s emphasis on the High Court’s duty to mould relief. Even if a petition was originally filed under Article 226, if the factual landscape changes (e.g., a cognizance order is passed), the High Court is not powerless. It should not dismiss the petition as infructuous. Instead, it can, and should, treat it as a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, provided the pleadings and prayers are appropriately amended to challenge the cognizance order. This ensures that technicalities do not trump substantive justice. 

A Guide for Litigants and Lawyers: Navigating the New BNSS Era 

This ruling is one of the first significant interpretations of the new criminal codes, effectively replacing references to Section 482 of the CrPC with Section 528 of the BNSS. For anyone facing criminal proceedings, this judgment dictates a critical strategic shift: 

• Act Before Cognizance: If you believe an FIR is malicious or baseless, seek legal advice and move the High Court swiftly under Article 226 or Section 528 before the charge sheet is filed and the court takes cognizance. 

• If Cognizance is Taken: Your lawyer must now specifically challenge the cognizance order in the petition, alongside the FIR and charge sheet. The pleadings must build a “strong factual case” demonstrating how the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence or show a clear abuse of the process of the court. 

• Drafting is Key: The petition must be meticulously drafted to invoke the High Court’s power under Section 528 of the BNSS explicitly. Vague prayers seeking quashing “in the interest of justice” may not suffice. 

Conclusion: Reinforcing the Architecture of Justice 

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni is a robust affirmation of structured justice. It reaffirms that while the Constitution grants the High Courts sweeping powers, these powers are not untethered. They must be exercised within a framework that respects statutory schemes, judicial hierarchy, and procedural propriety. 

By clearly demarcating when a constitutional remedy gives way to a statutory one, the Court has strengthened the legal process, ensuring that the mighty writ of the High Court is used for its intended purpose—to protect fundamental rights and correct grave injustices—rather than as a substitute for a clearly outlined statutory appeal. This clarity is a significant step toward a more efficient, predictable, and disciplined criminal justice system under the new BNSS regime. 

Case Title: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni versus State of Maharashtra and Another Citation: [Awaiting Official Citation] Judgment Date: September 3, 2025 Bench: Hon’ble Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra