Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, 2025

The applicant, Vishwa Bandhu, filed an application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.

The applicant argued that a second FIR on the same set of facts is illegal under the principle laid down in T.T. Antony and amounts to abuse of process.

The State raised a preliminary objection that since the case was still under investigation, and no chargesheet had been filed, the appropriate remedy was under Article 226, not Section 528 BNSS.

The applicant had not placed the chargesheet or cognizance order on record (because they did not exist yet).

Relying on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, the High Court held the application not maintainable.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS as non-maintainable.

It held that since the applicant had not placed the chargesheet or cognizance order, the Court cannot invoke Section 528 BNSS to quash only the FIR.

The Court followed the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni.

The High Court accepted the State’s primary objection that at the investigation stage, the proper remedy was Article 226, not Section 528 BNSS.

The Allahabad High Court interpreted the Pradnya judgment to mean that Section 528 BNSS petitions require the chargesheet and cognizance order to be placed on record.

Since in Pradnya, the Supreme Court distinguished stages before and after cognizance, the Allahabad HC applied this strictly.

The editorial note highlights that the Supreme Court never barred FIR-only quashing under Section 482/528.

The SC merely stated that once cognizance is taken, the petitioner must challenge the cognizance order as well.

Therefore, the Allahabad HC’s reliance on Pradnya is seen as over-extended, especially since no chargesheet existed in this case.

In Imran Pratapgadhi and Abhishek Mishra, the SC held that:

• 482/528 powers may be exercised even at the nascent investigation stage,

• Filing of chargesheet is not a bar to exercise inherent powers.

Thus, the Allahabad HC's strict reading appears in tension with these rulings.

The State relied on the 1989 decision Ram Lal Yadav, which limits Section 482 (now 528) to post-cognizance situations.

But that very decision was recently called obsolete by Justice Deshwal (Allahabad HC) and referred to a Nine-Judge Bench, indicating that the law is in flux.

The case reflects an ongoing judicial debate about the scope of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The Allahabad HC adopted a strict procedural approach, while the Supreme Court in recent cases has shown a liberal and flexible approach.

The decision underscores the confusion created during the transition from CrPC to BNSS, especially regarding maintainability of pre-chargesheet applications.