Section 482 CrPC / BNSS quashing in 2026 — practical guide for advocates

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 — and now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (effective 1 July 2024) — is the High Court's inherent-power lifeline for quashing FIRs, complaints, and proceedings that survive no fair test. This post is a 2026 practitioner's guide.

What Section 482 / 528 BNSS does

Section 482 CrPC reads: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

Section 528 BNSS retains this language verbatim. The substantive law is unchanged.

The High Court uses Section 482/528 most commonly to:

Quash FIRs that disclose no cognizable offence

Quash chargesheets after investigation that cannot stand

Quash Magistrate cognizance and processes issued

Quash entire proceedings on settlement (in compoundable or quasi-criminal categories)

Stay or quash Section 156(3) orders

The Bhajan Lal categories

The classic seven-category framework comes from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992). The Supreme Court enumerated when High Courts should exercise inherent power to quash:

Where allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence.

Where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying investigation under Section 156(1).

Where uncontroverted allegations of the FIR plus collected evidence do not disclose any offence.

Where allegations make out only a non-cognizable offence (no investigation without Magistrate's order).

Where allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person would ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

Where there is express bar (statutory) to institution and continuance of proceedings.

Where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and have been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

The Bhajan Lal categories remain the polestar in 2026 — every quashing petition is structured around one or more of these.

Settlement-based quashing

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) held that the High Court can quash proceedings on settlement even in non-compoundable offences, provided the offence is not "heinous" — typically read as not against society at large.

Compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC (Section 359 BNSS) can be settled and the underlying petition is straightforward. Non-compoundable offences need the Bhajan Lal-Gian Singh-Narinder Singh framework.

The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) further clarified: matrimonial offences (498A IPC, now 84/85 BNS) can be quashed on settlement; commercial-dispute-disguised-as-criminal cases can be quashed; serious offences like murder, rape, organised crime cannot.

Drafting a Section 482 / 528 BNSS petition

The structure most counsel teams follow:

Cause-title. "Petition under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR No. X registered at Y Police Station / proceedings in Case No. Z." Drafting note: where the matter straddles the BNS/BNSS effective date (1 July 2024), state both code references explicitly to avoid limitation arguments.

Facts. Bullet the FIR allegation. Then bullet the petitioner's response — what is denied, what is contested, what is established by independent evidence (CCTV, documents, third-party testimony).

Grounds. Pick the Bhajan Lal categories that apply and frame the grounds explicitly. Unstructured "no offence is made out" pleadings get rejected. Structured "the allegation falls under categories 1, 5, and 7 of Bhajan Lal" pleadings get heard.

Reliefs sought. Typically (i) quashing of the FIR, (ii) quashing of consequential proceedings, (iii) any interim relief like stay of arrest or stay of proceedings.

Annexures. FIR copy, chargesheet (if filed), Section 161 statements (if collected), settlement deed (in settlement-based petitions), and any documentary evidence of mala fide.

Recent appellate trends (2024-2026)

Three patterns visible in recent SC and HC jurisprudence:

Stricter on mala-fide grounds. Courts increasingly require concrete material — not just allegations — before accepting category-7 mala-fide arguments. Skoda Auto Volkswagen v. State of UP (2021) and follow-on judgments push the bar higher.

Cooperation with investigation. When a petitioner has refused to cooperate with investigation, several HCs have declined to entertain Section 482/528 BNSS petitions. Cooperate first, quash later, is the working rule.

Settlement scrutiny. Even on settlement, HCs are scrutinising the genuineness of the settlement — particularly in matrimonial matters where coercion-to-settle has become a pleaded defence.

Limitation and forum

Section 482 / 528 BNSS petitions have no formal limitation but the doctrine of latches applies. Six months from the date of the impugned order/FIR is the conventional outer bound; longer delays need explanation.

Forum is the High Court of the territorial jurisdiction. For Allahabad HC matters, the Lucknow Bench handles Awadh-region matters; for Bombay HC, Aurangabad and Nagpur benches handle their respective regions; for Karnataka HC, Dharwad and Kalaburagi benches handle northern Karnataka.

How CourtNetra handles Section 482 / 528 BNSS workflow

Quashing petitions in CourtNetra are tagged as criminal-quashing matters with FIR number, Section invoked, and category framework structured. NyayaLens AI surfaces relevant precedent — Bhajan Lal, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, and the latest jurisdictional High Court trends — with verified citations.

Petition templates pre-fill from the matter record. The hearing-diary digest covers all listing dates across multiple HCs for counsel teams handling SC + multiple HC quashing portfolios.

Common pitfalls

Filing without cooperating with investigation. As noted, courts increasingly decline. Default rule: cooperate first.

Unstructured grounds. "Submit, the FIR discloses no offence" without anchoring to a Bhajan Lal category is rejected on first reading. Anchor explicitly.

Stale settlement deeds. A settlement deed signed three years before filing creates suspicion. File promptly.

Wrong forum. Magistrate-level matters should go through Section 482/528 BNSS to the appropriate HC. Some advocates mistakenly route them through revision under Section 397 — that's a different power and a different test.

Ignoring Section 397. For Sessions Court orders, Section 397 revision is the primary remedy; Section 482/528 BNSS is exceptional. Filing under Section 482/528 BNSS for matters where Section 397 revision lies invites dismissal.

The bottom line

Section 482/528 BNSS quashing is one of the most-used and most-misused powers in Indian criminal practice. Used well — anchored to Bhajan Lal categories, filed promptly, with cooperation in investigation — it's a real lifeline. Used as a fishing expedition, it gets dismissed and burns the matter timeline.

For Indian advocates handling a portfolio of quashing matters across multiple HCs, the workflow benefits from structured matter management — tagged grounds, verified precedent search via NyayaLens AI, hearing-diary aggregation. CourtNetra is built for that workflow.