Quashing is the exercise of the High Court's inherent power to set aside or annul criminal proceedings, including an FIR, charge sheet, or criminal complaint, in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. Under Indian law, quashing is governed by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides:
Section 482: 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any order made under Section 438 sub-section (3).
This power is not conferred by the Code but is preserved by it — the inherent power exists independent of statutory provisions and is a recognition of the constitutional role of the High Court.
New law equivalent: Under the BNSS, 2023, Section 528 corresponds to Section 482 CrPC. The language is substantially identical, preserving the inherent powers of the High Court.
How courts have interpreted this term
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
The Supreme Court laid down seven illustrative categories of cases where the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings:
- Where the allegations in the FIR, even taken at face value, do not constitute any offence.
- Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by police.
- Where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence do not make out a case against the accused.
- Where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person would conclude there is sufficient ground to proceed.
- Where there is a legal bar to instituting or continuing the proceedings.
- Where only a non-cognizable offence is disclosed and no prior Magistrate permission was obtained.
- Where the complaint is filed with mala fide intent or ulterior motive.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866]
In this early landmark, the Supreme Court identified three broad categories for quashing: (1) where the allegations do not disclose any offence, (2) where the evidence is clearly insufficient to support the charge, and (3) where the proceedings are instituted with mala fide intent.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401]
The Supreme Court cautioned that while exercising power under Section 482, the High Court must accept the allegations in the FIR at face value and cannot embark upon an inquiry into the truth of the allegations. The Court cannot act as an appellate court over the investigating agency at the stage of quashing.
Types of quashing
Indian law recognises quashing in several contexts:
- Quashing of FIR: Setting aside the First Information Report itself before investigation is complete, typically when no cognizable offence is disclosed.
- Quashing of chargesheet: Setting aside the chargesheet filed by police, when evidence collected does not make out a case.
- Quashing of complaint: Setting aside a private criminal complaint filed before a Magistrate.
- Quashing on settlement: Setting aside proceedings where the parties have genuinely settled, even for non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab).
Why this matters
Quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) constitute one of the largest categories of criminal matters before the High Courts. The power serves as an essential check against the misuse of criminal law as a tool of harassment, extortion, or business rivalry. In a legal system where mere registration of an FIR can cause severe reputational and personal harm, the quashing power provides a vital remedy.
For practitioners, the Bhajan Lal categories remain the most frequently cited framework. However, quashing is not limited to these categories — the Supreme Court has consistently held that these are illustrative, not exhaustive. The overriding test is whether continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or result in injustice.
A significant development is the quashing of non-compoundable offences on settlement. Following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), High Courts routinely quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes, cheating cases, and other offences arising from private disputes where a genuine settlement has been reached, even when the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
Related terms
Related procedures:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Who can file a quashing petition?
Any person aggrieved by the criminal proceedings can file a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) before the High Court. This includes the accused, a co-accused, or even a third party affected by the proceedings.
Can an FIR be quashed at the investigation stage?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the High Court can quash an FIR even at the nascent stage of investigation if the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence. However, courts are generally reluctant to interfere at this early stage and prefer to let the investigation proceed.
Is quashing the same as discharge?
No. Discharge under Section 227 CrPC (Section 250 BNSS) is ordered by the trial court before framing charges. Quashing under Section 482 is ordered by the High Court at any stage of proceedings. Discharge is based on the material before the trial court, while quashing is based on the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.
Can a quashing order be challenged?
A quashing order by the High Court can be challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. Similarly, if the High Court refuses to quash proceedings, the aggrieved party may approach the Supreme Court.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.