Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which preserved the inherent powers of the High Court, has been replaced by Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The two provisions are textually identical, save for the replacement of "Code" with "Sanhita." The inherent powers of High Courts — to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the statute, to prevent abuse of process, and to secure the ends of justice — remain fully intact. The Supreme Court has confirmed seamless doctrinal continuity, meaning the entire body of Section 482 jurisprudence applies directly to Section 528 BNSS.
What changed
| Feature | Section 482 CrPC (Old) | Section 528 BNSS (New) |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory text | "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers..." | "Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers..." |
| Three-fold purpose | (i) Give effect to orders; (ii) Prevent abuse of process; (iii) Secure ends of justice | Identical — all three purposes retained |
| Nature of power | Saving clause — does not confer new power but preserves existing inherent power | Same — saving clause preserved |
| Vested in | High Court only | High Court only — same |
| Scope | Unlimited, to be exercised sparingly | Same — unchanged |
| Quashing power | FIRs, complaints, chargesheets, proceedings | Same — unchanged |
| Constitutional basis | Article 226/227 also available | Same — constitutional powers remain parallel |
Full statutory text
Section 482 CrPC (Old Law):
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 (New Law):
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 differences
Textual identity: The only change is the word "Code" replaced by "Sanhita." Every other word is identical. This was a deliberate legislative choice — the inherent powers of High Courts are considered a fundamental safeguard of the criminal justice system, and the legislature chose not to alter them in any respect.
Saving clause nature preserved: Section 528 BNSS, like Section 482 CrPC, is a saving clause. It does not grant or confer new powers — it saves and preserves the inherent powers that the High Court possesses by virtue of being a superior court of record. If the High Court exists, the inherent powers exist; nothing in the entire BNSS can affect those inherent powers.
No restriction, limitation, or expansion: Unlike several other CrPC provisions that underwent modification in BNSS, Section 528 was left entirely untouched. No new conditions, restrictions, guidelines, or procedural requirements were added. No expansion of scope was attempted. The legislature preserved the status quo completely.
Doctrinal continuity confirmed: The Sikkim High Court and other courts have confirmed that Section 528 BNSS mirrors Section 482 CrPC, and that the substantive framework, standards for quashing proceedings, and judicial principles established under Section 482 continue to apply to Section 528 without any modification.
Guardrails from Supreme Court case law: The Supreme Court has recently clarified two important guardrails on inherent powers under BNSS: there is no power of recall or review under Section 528 save for correction of clerical errors, and successive quashing petitions after withdrawal without liberty are barred. These principles apply equally under both CrPC and BNSS.
What this means for practitioners
For accused persons seeking quashing: The standard for quashing FIRs, complaints, and criminal proceedings remains exactly the same. The Bhajan Lal categories — seven grounds on which proceedings may be quashed — continue to be the governing framework. Practitioners should cite Section 528 BNSS (instead of Section 482 CrPC) for proceedings initiated after 1 July 2024.
For complainants and the prosecution: The threshold for quashing remains high. The inherent power is to be exercised "sparingly" and "in the rarest of rare cases." The prosecution can continue to oppose quashing petitions using the same arguments and principles developed under Section 482 CrPC jurisprudence.
For commercial disputes with criminal overlay: The settled principle that purely civil disputes dressed up as criminal complaints can be quashed under inherent powers continues. The Parbatbhai Aahir guidelines on quashing in compoundable matrimonial offences also remain applicable.
For pending quashing petitions: Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC before 1 July 2024 that are still pending may be heard and decided on merits. The transitional provisions of BNSS do not affect the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. Post-commencement petitions should invoke Section 528 BNSS.
For nascent investigations: The Supreme Court has clarified that the nascent stage of investigation is not a bar to exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. If the FIR on its face does not disclose a cognizable offence, it can be quashed regardless of the stage of investigation.
Does old case law still apply?
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: The seven categories for quashing proceedings — from allegations not constituting an offence to abuse of process — remain the foundational framework for Section 528 BNSS. Every High Court in India applies these categories. They are fully applicable.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866: The earlier formulation of categories where inherent power can be exercised — legal bar against institution, allegations not constituting the offence alleged, and evidence manifestly failing to prove the charge — continues to be cited alongside Bhajan Lal. Fully applicable.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641: The principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes based on settlement between parties, and the parameters for quashing in compoundable offences, continue to apply under Section 528 BNSS.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401: The Supreme Court's instruction that while hearing quashing petitions, courts should not grant interim stays of investigation as a matter of course continues to govern. The remedy under Section 528 BNSS is not meant to stall legitimate investigations.
The entirety of Section 482 CrPC jurisprudence — spanning over fifty years of development — applies directly, completely, and without modification to Section 528 BNSS. There is seamless doctrinal continuity.
Judicial interpretation under BNSS Section 528 (post-July 2024)
The following case from the Veritect Legal Intelligence database shows how the Supreme Court is interpreting Section 528 BNSS in practice:
Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh (22 September 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Result: Appeal allowed, FIR and chargesheet quashed
The Supreme Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash both an FIR and chargesheet against a Junior Revenue Inspector accused of rape under the pretext of marriage. The appellant had lodged multiple prior complaints alleging harassment and threats by the complainant. The FIR was filed nearly two years after the alleged incident, and the Court found that the entire factual matrix — including the timing of the complaint, the prior administrative proceedings, and the complainant's conduct — revealed retaliatory intent.
The Court confirmed seamless doctrinal continuity between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, holding that the inherent powers of the High Court are fully preserved under the new procedural code. It clarified that a mere prima facie case in an FIR does not bar quashing when surrounding circumstances reveal malicious intent. The judgment refines the jurisprudential test for quashing: courts must assess the entire factual matrix, including prior administrative actions and the timing of complaints, to determine whether proceedings are being used as a tool of vengeance.
Veritect reference: Diary_8809-2025_Judgment
Emerging patterns
- Complete doctrinal continuity confirmed: The Supreme Court has expressly held that Section 528 BNSS mirrors Section 482 CrPC and all existing jurisprudence applies without modification.
- Holistic factual matrix assessment: Courts are expected to look beyond the FIR's contents to assess the surrounding circumstances, including prior complaints, timing, and possible retaliatory motives.
- No power of recall or review: The SC has clarified there is no power to recall or review orders under Section 528 save for correction of clerical errors, and successive quashing petitions after withdrawal without liberty are barred.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 528 BNSS different from Section 482 CrPC? No. Section 528 BNSS is textually identical to Section 482 CrPC, with only "Code" replaced by "Sanhita." The scope, nature, and application of inherent powers are completely unchanged.
Can subordinate courts exercise inherent powers under Section 528? No. Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are vested exclusively in the High Court. Sessions Courts, Magistrates, and other subordinate courts do not possess inherent powers under this provision.
Can the High Court quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS? Yes. The High Court can quash an FIR, complaint, chargesheet, or any criminal proceeding if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or continuation would amount to abuse of process. The Bhajan Lal categories govern this power.
Is there a difference between Section 528 BNSS and Article 226 of the Constitution? Section 528 BNSS is a statutory power, while Article 226 is a constitutional power. Both can be used to quash criminal proceedings, but Article 226 has a wider scope covering all fundamental rights violations. In practice, many quashing petitions invoke both provisions simultaneously.