Section 528 BNSS: Inherent Powers of High Court

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in X Complainant of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 v. State of U.P. and Others (2026), held that the Allahabad High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while hearing an appeal filed by the complainant herself, clarifying that filing a separate petition under Section 528 BNSS is not a precondition for exercising such powers. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The complainant, a Scheduled Caste woman working as an Instructor in an Upper Primary School, alleged that she resided as a tenant in the house of opposite party no. 2, from whom her husband had purchased a plot of land. 
• It later emerged that the seller was not the actual owner of the plot, and although part of the sale consideration was recovered after the plot was resold, some amount allegedly remained unpaid. 
• She further alleged that opposite party no. 2, taking advantage of her husband's absence due to work, sexually exploited her on the pretext of helping her recover the unpaid amount, and on this basis sought registration of an FIR. 
• When the police did not act on her complaint, she approached the Special Judge under Section 173(4) BNSS. The Special Judge, instead of directing registration of an FIR, treated her application as a complaint. 
• Aggrieved by this order, she filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, challenging only the refusal to direct registration of an FIR. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of the dispute: The Court noted that the dispute essentially arose out of a monetary transaction involving the complainant's husband, who had neither disclosed the alleged unpaid amount nor initiated any civil or criminal proceedings for its recovery. 
• On the improbability of the allegations: The Court observed that the allegations were "wholly improbable," noting that a married woman working as an instructor had claimed she allowed herself to be sexually exploited under the allurement of recovering her husband's undisclosed dues, even though her husband himself had taken no steps to recover the money. 
• On misuse of criminal process: The Court held that even if the allegation were assumed true, it did not disclose commission of any offence by opposite party no. 2, and that the complainant appeared to be abusing the criminal justice system to pressure the opposite parties into paying an undisclosed sum. Relying on Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery of disputed civil dues. 
• On the scope of Section 528 BNSS: The Court held that Section 528 BNSS merely recognises the High Court's inherent powers, which exist to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or to secure the ends of justice. 
• On exercising the power suo motu in an appeal: Relying on State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1990), Som Mittal v. State of Karnataka (2008), and Popular Muthiah v. State (2006), the Court held that the High Court is not powerless merely because no petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed, and that it may exercise its inherent powers suo motu even while exercising appellate jurisdiction, including in an appeal filed by the complainant herself. 
• On relief granted: The Court set aside the Special Judge's order treating the application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint, and quashed the entire complaint proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers. 

What is Section 528 BNSS? 

Section 528 BNSS: Saving of Inherent Powers of High Court 

Bare Text: 

"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 Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 

Key Points: 

• Section 528 of BNSS replaces the former Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserving the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice. 
• This is a saving provision — it does not confer new powers but merely recognises the High Court's pre-existing inherent powers to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Sanhita. 
• Inherent powers under Section 528 cannot be invoked to quash police investigations following a cognizable FIR, interfere with statutory investigation rights, or question the reliability of FIR allegations at the threshold. 
• These powers can be exercised to quash proceedings where there is a legal bar to their continuation, where the allegations even if taken at face value don't disclose commission of an offence, or where the evidence on record fails to support the charges. 
• Courts are cautioned against entertaining Section 528 petitions where alternative remedies have not first been pursued, and a second petition is barred on grounds that were available at the time of filing the first petition. 
• As a saving provision, Section 528 preserves the High Court's discretionary power to intervene in exceptional circumstances where ordinary remedies are inadequate to secure complete justice. 
• Exercise of this power requires judicial restraint, particularly where the investigation is at a nascent stage. 
• Courts must balance protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution against allowing legitimate investigation to proceed, especially in cases involving economic offences. 
• The power can be used to prevent abuse where criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intent or an ulterior motive stemming from private grudges rather than genuine grievance. 
• Courts adopt a more cautious approach to quashing proceedings in economic offence cases under Section 528, given the distinct nature of such offences and their wider impact on the financial system.