S. 482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS | Supreme Court Lays Down Four-Step Test For High Courts To Quash Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court laid down the steps to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).

The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: -

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the 13 prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

“If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”, the court explained.

The Case

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case arising out of the Allahabad High Court's decision which refused to quash the summons issued by the magistrate to the Appellant for the offence of rape on false pretext of marriage on a complaint filed by the complainant.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-accused submitted that he was in a consensual relationship with the complainant, and when something went wrong, they decided to part ways. He disputed the veracity of the complaint as it was filed only after a period of four years in 2014.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summons issued by the magistrate in a complaint case.

“we are of the view that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The High Court too overlooked the relevant aspects of the matter while rejecting the Section 482 application. It is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations that the same doesn't inspire any confidence. There is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint.”, the court said.

It was in this context that the Court laid down the aforesaid steps to be borne in mind by the High Courts to make the process simpler for them while deciding quashing petitions.

Cause Title: PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.