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

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra:

• Case Details: The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025 arising from a final judgment and order dated 01-07-2025 passed by the Bombay High Court in WP No. 4394 of 2024. (!)
• Core Ruling: The Court ruled that a pending FIR can be quashed even after a chargesheet is filed, provided that cognizance of the offense has not been taken by the court. (!)
• Legal Basis: The jurisdiction to quash the FIR continues under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, even after the filing of a chargesheet. (!)
• Precedent Clarification (Neeta Singh): The Court clarified that the ratio in Neeta Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh was misapplied by the Bombay High Court. In Neeta Singh, the writ petition was under Article 226 alone, cognizance had already been taken, and no jurisdiction under Article 227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked. (!) (!)
• Factual Dissimilarity: Unlike the Neeta Singh case where cognizance was taken, in the present case, it was not clear from the High Court's order whether cognizance had been taken by the magistrate. Until cognizance is taken, Article 226 remains available to quash the FIR/chargesheet. (!)
• Jurisdiction under BNSS: The Bombay High Court Division Bench had the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to examine the grievance regarding the quashing of the FIR, the chargesheet, and any order taking cognizance, provided the requisite pleadings were placed on record. (!)
• Error by High Court: The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court misread the Neeta Singh decision, omitted to notice the factual dissimilarity, misapplied the legal ratio, and consequently caused a failure of justice. (!)
• Outcome: The impugned order of the Bombay High Court dated 01-07-2025 was set aside. The writ petition was revived for reconsideration by a roster bench of the Bombay High Court. (!) (!)
• Statutes Referred: The judgment referred to the Constitution of India (Article 226), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 528), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482). (!) (!)