The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated 9 September 2025, established a structured four-step process for High Courts to follow when determining the veracity of quashment petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta laid down the framework to bring consistency to the exercise of inherent powers by High Courts in quashing criminal proceedings.
Background
Section 482 of the CrPC preserves the inherent powers of High Courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. This provision is one of the most frequently invoked remedies in criminal law, yet its application has been marked by significant inconsistency across High Courts and even among different Benches of the same High Court.
The case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh arose from a quashment petition where the High Court had dismissed the application without adequate engagement with the materials on record. The Supreme Court, recognising the need for a standardised approach, used the occasion to lay down a comprehensive framework for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court prescribed the following four-step process:
Step One — Facial examination of the FIR/complaint: The Court must first examine whether the allegations in the FIR or complaint, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose a cognisable offence. If the allegations, even if proved, would not constitute an offence, the proceedings must be quashed at this stage.
Step Two — Assessment of prima facie materials: Where the allegations do disclose an offence on their face, the Court must examine whether the materials annexed to the petition reveal that the allegations are so inherently improbable or absurd that no prudent person would reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Step Three — Evaluation of abuse of process indicators: The Court must consider whether there are indicators that the criminal process is being deployed as an instrument of harassment, coercion, or settlement of civil disputes. Relevant factors include the timeline of filing, relationship between parties, and existence of parallel civil proceedings.
Step Four — Balancing exercise: Where Steps One through Three do not conclusively determine the petition, the Court must conduct a balancing exercise weighing the accused's right against vexatious prosecution against the State's interest in investigating and prosecuting crime.
Implications for Practitioners
This four-step framework provides defence counsel with a structured basis for drafting quashment petitions. Each petition should now address all four steps, presenting arguments sequentially through the prescribed analytical framework rather than relying on generalised submissions about the inherent jurisdiction.
Prosecutors opposing quashment petitions must similarly engage with each step, demonstrating at each stage why the proceedings should continue. The framework makes it more difficult for High Courts to dismiss quashment petitions perfunctorily without addressing each prescribed analytical stage.
The structured approach should reduce inconsistency across High Courts, though practitioners should track how different Benches interpret the boundaries between the four steps, particularly the balancing exercise in Step Four, which retains an element of judicial discretion.