Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has held that that there is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a petition if the investigation is at a primary stage under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Kulandaisamy & Anr. V. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Kulandaisamy & Anr. V. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police & Anr. Case?   

• The case involves two appellants, Kulandaisamy and another individual, who are challenging a legal matter that originated with a First Information Report (FIR).  
• An FIR was filed against the appellants, which initiated a criminal investigation. 
• The appellants filed a petition to quash this FIR in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 
• The investigation by law enforcement was still in its preliminary stages at the time of the legal proceedings. 
• The appellants seem to believe that the matter underlying the FIR is more of a civil dispute rather than a criminal issue. 
• The High Court originally dismissed the appellants' petition to quash the FIR, suggesting there was some prima facie material that could warrant an investigation. 
• Unsatisfied with the High Court's decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, filing a Special Leave Petition to challenge the High Court's order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Preliminary Investigation Stage: 
    • The investigation was still at a preliminary stage, as shown in the respondent-State's counter affidavit. 
    • The Court emphasized that there is no absolute rule preventing judicial interference just because an investigation is in its early stages. 
  • High Court's Original Order Criticism: 
    • The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to dismissing the petition unusual. 
    • The Court noted that the High Court did not consider the appellants' plea to quash the First Information Report (FIR) on its merits. 
  • Specific Criticisms of High Court's Order: 
    • The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the High Court's order, which they considered an unheard-of approach in dealing with a petition under Section 482 of CrPC. 
    • The Court felt the High Court had not properly examined the appellants' arguments. 
  • Remedial Action: 
    • The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's original order dated 1st April 2024. 
    • They restored the original Criminal Original Petition (No.7963 of 2024) to the Madras High Court's file. 
    • The Court directed the restored petition to be listed on 24th March 2025, before the roster Bench. 
  • Procedural Directions: 
    • The parties present in the Supreme Court were ordered to appear before the High Court on the specified date. 
    • The Supreme Court left all questions open for the High Court to decide. 
    • The overall thrust of the Supreme Court's observations was that the High Court should conduct a more thorough and substantive review of the petition to quash the FIR. 

What is Section 528 of BNSS?   

About:  

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita 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.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.   

Purpose:   

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.   
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:   
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.   
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.   
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings?  

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023): 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.