The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 528 of the BNSS — the inherent-powers provision corresponding to old CrPC Section 482 — is the section under which High Courts have, for decades, exercised the power to quash criminal proceedings. The drafting is materially the same. Whether the law itself will be the same is what petitioners' counsel must now watch.

The substantive text reads: the High Court retains the inherent power "to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The continuity is deliberate, and early benches have signalled — explicitly in some matters, by adoption in others — that the body of CrPC Section 482 jurisprudence carries over.

01The continuity assumption

Two preliminary observations from the orders we have seen across the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Punjab & Haryana in the months since BNSS came into force:

  • The standard tests laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — the famous catalogue of categories in which inherent powers may be exercised — are being routinely cited as continuing to apply.
  • The line of authority on the limits of inherent powers (the High Court will not embark on a roving enquiry into facts; the F.I.R. is read as a whole; quashing is sparing) is being reproduced essentially intact.

02Where to expect change

While Section 528 itself is materially unchanged, the BNSS has changed several adjacent provisions which feed into a quashing analysis. Three are worth flagging:

(a) Investigation timelines

The BNSS introduces accelerated investigation timelines for several categories of offence and prescribes consequence-bearing stages (charge-sheet, supplementary materials). Where a quashing petition is brought during investigation, the High Court will likely look at the BNSS investigation framework rather than the CrPC norms.

(b) Electronic evidence and the trial map

The BNSS carries a more developed framework for electronic evidence handling. Quashing petitions premised on the alleged absence or fabrication of digital material will need to grapple with the new procedural geography.

(c) Plea bargaining and compounding

Where the petitioner approaches the High Court with a settlement, the BNSS framework on plea bargaining and on compounding of offences differs in some particulars from the CrPC. Quashing petitions premised on settlement will need to align the request with the relevant BNSS section, not its CrPC counterpart.

03Drafting a Section 528 petition today

Practical guidance for a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, based on the firm's experience over the last several months:

  1. Cite Section 528 BNSS in the title and prayer — but acknowledge in the body that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is the same as that exercised under CrPC Section 482, and rely on the CrPC line of authority where directly relevant.
  2. Pin the case to a Bhajan Lal category. Whatever else has changed, the bench still wants to see the petition fitted to one of the recognised heads — no offence on the face of the F.I.R., abuse of process, manifest improbability, civil dispute dressed up as criminal, and so on.
  3. Narrate the facts cleanly. Quashing is a pleading-based remedy. The bench reads the F.I.R., the petition and the response — usually in that order. The narration must do the work.
  4. If a settlement is in the picture, attach it as an annexure with proof of voluntariness. Quashing-on-settlement orders are still being passed, but the bench is alive to coercion concerns.
Quashing is a pleading-based remedy. The bench reads the F.I.R., the petition and the response — usually in that order. The narration must do the work.

What we think happens next

Section 528 of the BNSS will, we suspect, settle into a near-identical jurisprudence to its CrPC predecessor over the next two to three years. The transition is largely cosmetic. Where it is not — investigation timelines, electronic evidence, settlement and compounding — counsel must read the BNSS provisions afresh rather than rely on muscle memory.

For now, treat Bhajan Lal as live, treat the CrPC Section 482 line of authority as persuasive, and update the title page.

Advocate Raghav Sabharwal
Founding Partner

Raghav Sabharwal is a founding partner of Case Law with over 5+ years of active litigation practice. His work covers criminal defence, economic offences, BNSS Section 528 quashing petitions, ED and CBI matters, banking litigation and SARFAESI proceedings before Delhi courts and tribunals.