Quashing an FIR means asking the High Court to cancel a First Information Report and stop the criminal case before it goes to trial. It is one of the most powerful remedies in Indian criminal law because, when granted, it ends the prosecution at the root. Since the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on 1 July 2024 — alongside the Indian Penal Code being replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — this power now sits in Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). This guide explains the grounds, the role of settlement, the petition process, and when courts say no. If you are facing a false or malicious case, speak to our criminal lawyers in Delhi early.

The legal basis: Section 528 BNSS and Article 226

There are two routes to quash an FIR.

Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers). This is the main route. The provision preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders 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.” Its wording is identical to the old Section 482 CrPC, so the entire body of Supreme Court precedent built up over decades continues to apply.

Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction). A High Court can also quash an FIR through a writ petition, particularly where fundamental rights or police high-handedness are involved. In practice, most petitions invoke both — a petition “under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 226.”

Only the High Court can quash an FIR. A trial court cannot; it can discharge an accused at a later stage, but that is a different remedy.

Grounds for quashing: the Bhajan Lal categories

The foundational authority is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where the Supreme Court laid down seven illustrative categories in which a High Court may quash an FIR or criminal proceeding:

Where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out any offence.
Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying a police investigation without a Magistrate’s order.
Where the allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose any offence.
Where the allegations do disclose an offence but it is non-cognizable and the police acted without the required order of a Magistrate.
Where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude there is sufficient ground to proceed.
Where there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings (e.g., a required sanction is missing or a statutory remedy exists).
Where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance with an ulterior motive.

The Court was emphatic that this power must be exercised “sparingly” and “in the rarest of rare cases,” not as a routine. Importantly, the High Court does not weigh the reliability or sufficiency of evidence at this stage — that is for trial. It looks at whether, accepting the FIR as true, an offence is made out at all.

The Supreme Court has continued to refine this. In recent decisions under Section 528 BNSS, the Court has confirmed that the nascent or early stage of investigation is no bar to quashing where abuse of process is clear, and that proceedings can be quashed where reliable, unimpeachable material on record disproves the allegations.

Quashing on the basis of settlement or compromise

A separate and very common route is quashing because the parties have settled the dispute. The leading authority is Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, decided by a three-judge bench. It draws a crucial distinction:

Private-natured offences — typically those arising from commercial, financial, matrimonial, civil, partnership, or family disputes — can be quashed on compromise, because continuing the prosecution would serve no public purpose and the wrong is essentially personal.
Heinous and serious offences — such as murder, rape, dacoity, and offences under special statutes (for example, the Prevention of Corruption Act) or those involving public servants — cannot be quashed merely because the victim and accused have settled. These crimes have a serious impact on society and are not the parties’ to compromise away.

The compounding provision in the BNSS (compounding of offences, formerly Section 320 CrPC) lists offences the parties may compound directly. Section 528 quashing on compromise is wider — the High Court can quash even non-compoundable offences if the dispute is genuinely private and continuing the case would be an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court refined the test for non-compoundable offences in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. It held, among other things, that the High Court must be satisfied the settlement is genuine and voluntary (no coercion), that offences with a serious societal impact (e.g., Section 307 BNS / IPC, attempt to murder) need careful scrutiny rather than a mechanical quashing, and that timing matters — quashing of serious offences on compromise is generally considered only after evidence is collected, not while the matter is at an early investigative stage.

If your matter is a genuinely false complaint rather than a settled one, see our guide on how to fight a false FIR.

The quashing petition process

A quashing petition follows these broad steps:

Jurisdiction. File before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the FIR was registered — for a Delhi FIR, the Delhi High Court.
Parties (respondents). Implead both the State (through the Public Prosecutor / Standing Counsel) and the complainant. Failure to implead the complainant is a frequent and often fatal defect — petitions are dismissed for non-joinder.
Drafting and annexures. The petition sets out the grounds and annexes a certified copy of the FIR, the charge sheet (if filed), and — for settlement matters — a notarised compromise deed or settlement affidavit stating the terms and reasons for settlement, ideally supported by the complainant’s affidavit.
Interim relief. Where arrest is imminent, the petition can include a prayer to stay the investigation or for no coercive action. The threshold is high: in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the Supreme Court cautioned that staying an investigation is the exception, granted only on a strong prima facie case — not as a matter of course. Alongside quashing, an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is often filed for interim protection.
Hearing and order. The Court hears both sides and may quash the FIR, quash it on conditions (e.g., deposit or undertaking), or dismiss the petition. In settlement cases it usually verifies the compromise — sometimes by having the parties appear or recording statements.

Timing. A petition can be filed at any stage — soon after the FIR is registered, after the charge sheet, or even after charges are framed. Timelines vary widely by High Court and complexity, from a few months for a clear “no offence” case to a year or more for contested or economic-offence matters.

When courts refuse to quash

High Courts decline to quash where: the FIR does disclose a cognizable offence and the dispute raises questions of fact that only a trial can resolve; the offence is heinous or against society (murder, rape, terrorism, corruption, offences against the State); the petition asks the Court to act as a mini-trial by weighing evidence prematurely; a settlement appears coerced, collusive, or a device to defeat investigation; or the case involves economic offences with a wide public impact (the Supreme Court has repeatedly held these should not be quashed lightly even on compromise). The power exists to prevent abuse of process and secure justice — not to shield genuine crime.

Talk to a lawyer before you file

Quashing is fact-sensitive: the right ground, the right court, complete impleadment, and a properly drafted compromise (where applicable) decide the outcome. A defective or premature petition can waste the one clean opportunity to end a case early. Our criminal team at Astha Law Solutions advises on whether your FIR is a fit case for Section 528 BNSS relief and handles the petition before the Delhi High Court.

This is general information, not legal advice. Consult our lawyers for advice on your situation.

FIR Quashing in India: Process & Section 528 BNSS