Allahabad High Court Refers Questions On High Court's Power To Quash FIR U/S 528 BNSS To Nine-Judge Bench

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench, given the HC's 7-Judge Bench ruling in the case of Ramlal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1989), wherein it was held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC wouldn't be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Judge, while 'respectfully disagreeing' with a seven-judge bench ruling-which the Court found to be 'obsolete' in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others LL 2021 SC 211-referred the matter to a nine-judge bench, invoking the spirit of 'judicial discipline' and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis.

“This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the Full Bench decision of Ramlal Yadav (supra) may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the Apex Court. Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju (supra) and Mishri Lal (supra) the court is inclined to refer this matter to a Larger Bench comprising nine judges,” the bench noted in its 43-page order.

The Court added this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav-which though not explicitly reversed or overruled, but had become obsolete-was rendered by a bench of seven judges.

The questions referred to the larger bench are:

• In light of the law set forth by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), and other subsequent judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, is the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ramlal Yadav (supra) that an FIR and the ensuing investigation cannot be quashed by the High Court using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) - still valid?
• Can an FIR and its consequential investigation be quashed under the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) if the conditions outlined in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra) and paragraph 33 of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) are fulfilled?

Background of the case

The Court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, u/s 175(3) of BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

The AGA raised a preliminary objection that in view of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court considered almost all the judgements considered by the Full Bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the High Court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a 9-judge bench.

However, before parting with the order, the single judge explicitly clarified its opinion, based on the Top court's judgement in the cases of Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure.

It noted that in the exercise of its power u/s 482 CrPC, the HC can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure.

The Court also added that since it is the mandate of Section 155 (2) CrPC [Section 174(2) of BNSS] that the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence, therefore, if the police continues to investigate an FIR, which does not disclose a cognizable offence, the same would be against the mandate of CrPC/BNSS and in such cases, the HC court can interfere or stop the investigation in exercise of its power u/s 528 of BNSS (or Section 482 CrPC).