Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025
The ruling reinforces that technical changes during pendency (like charge-sheet filing) do not automatically render a petition infructuous.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
6 September 2025
Judges
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet.
-
During the pendency of the writ, a charge-sheet was filed, and cognisance was taken by a Magistrate.
-
The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, citing that once cognisance is taken, a writ under Article 226 is no longer maintainable, relying on the precedent of Neeta Singh v. State of UP (2024).
-
The Supreme Court was approached by the petitioner, challenging this dismissal.
Issues
-
Can a High Court entertain a petition to quash an FIR and charge-sheet under Article 226, once cognisance has been taken?
-
Does invocation of Section 528 BNSS (like Section 482 CrPC) give the High Court jurisdiction to also consider quashing the cognisance order?
-
Did the High Court misapply the ratio in Neeta Singh by failing to consider the dual invocation of Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s dismissal order.
-
It clarified that while judicial orders like cognisance may not be assailable under Article 226 alone, the invocation of Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) gives the High Court ample jurisdiction to consider quashing of:
-
FIR
-
Charge-sheet
-
Order taking cognisance, provided these are pleaded and grounds are made out.
-
-
The Court held that Neeta Singh was misapplied, as that case involved only Article 226, unlike the present one where Section 528 BNSS was also invoked.
-
It restored the writ petition for fresh consideration by the roster bench of the Bombay High Court.
Held
-
Before cognisance is taken: FIR or charge-sheet can be quashed under Article 226.
-
After cognisance is taken:
-
Relief must be sought under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC).
-
High Court can quash FIR, charge-sheet, and cognisance order if proper pleadings and strong grounds exist.
-
-
The High Court misinterpreted binding precedent, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
-
The writ petition was revived, and the matter is to be reconsidered afresh by the High Court.
Analysis
-
This judgment draws a critical distinction in procedural law post-cognisance:
-
Article 226 jurisdiction is limited once a judicial act (like cognisance) is passed.
-
But the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS remain intact.
-
-
The ruling reinforces that technical changes during pendency (like charge-sheet filing) do not automatically render a petition infructuous.
-
The Supreme Court is careful to prevent technical misreadings of precedent (like Neeta Singh) that could curtail access to remedies.
-
It reflects a balanced approach: protecting judicial discipline while ensuring substantive justice is not denied.