Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Quash Chargesheet If Cognizance Has Been Taken; Remedy Available Under S.528 BNSS : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded.

“So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”, the Court observed.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Bombay High Court's order, which had dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS for quashing an FIR, treating it as infructuous merely because a charge-sheet was filed during its pendency. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had misunderstood the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of UP (2024).

In Neeta Singh, the Supreme Court held that since judicial orders are not amenable to Article 226 jurisdication, a cognizance order cannot be challenged in a writ petition.

However, in the present case, since the jurisdiction under S.528 BNSS was also invoked, the Suprem Court said that the High Court “could have examined the grievance of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR together with the charge-sheet following it, as well as the cognisance taking order."

“since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked and the relief claimed could have been suitably moulded subject, of course, to the requisite satisfaction of the court that an order of quashing is warranted on facts and in the circumstances. We have no hesitation to hold that the Division Bench did have the jurisdiction to pass such an order as per the “Sitting List”.”, the court said.

The Court noted that the High Court's roster bench had jurisdiction to hear petitions for quashing FIRs, charge-sheets, and even cognizance orders under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS. Unlike Neeta Singh, where the petition was filed only under Article 226 and cognizance had already been taken, the present case invoked both Article 226 and BNSS §528, leaving the High Court competent to grant relief.

“Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court misread Neeta Singh (supra), inadvertently omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity as indicated above and consequently, misapplied the ratio of such decision to spurn the challenge laid by the petitioner resulting in a failure of justice.”, the court said.

Consequently, the appeal was disposed of at an admission stage without notice to the Respondents, and the writ petition is revived for being considered afresh by the roster bench of the Bombay High Court in accordance with law.

Cause Title: PRADNYA PRANJAL KULKARNI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Click here to read/download the order

Mr. Kisalaya Shukla, AOR Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv. appeared for Petitioner(s)