The Supreme Court ruled that a pending FIR can be quashed even after a chargesheet is filed if cognizance of the offense has not been taken, affirming the court's continued jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 528 of BNSS.

ORDER

1. A writ petition [Criminal Writ Petition No. 4394 of 2024] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Constitution] as well as under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ], was presented by the petitioner before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay [Bombay High Court]. In such writ petition, she sought quashing of a First Information Report [FIR] under Sections 420 , 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur, dated 12th September, 2024, bearing C.R. No. 648 of 2024. The same has been disposed of by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by an order dated 1st July, 2025. The reasons assigned by the High Court read as follows:

“2) Learned A.P.P. on instructions from A.P.I. Ms. Radhika Kendre attached to M.I.D.C Police Station, Solapur, submitted that, during the pendency of present petition, the police have completed investigation and filed chargesheet before the trial Court on 14th May 2025.

3) In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 13578/2024, Dated 15/10/2024 [2024 Supreme(SC) 1865, present Petition for quashing of F.I.R., after filing of chargesheet has become infructuous.

4) In view of the above and by reserving the remedy of filing an Application for discharge before the trial Court in favour of the Petitioner, Petition is disposed off.”

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has placed before us the “Sitting List” of Judges of the Bombay High Court, effective from 9th June, 2025, circulated by the Registry. It appears therefrom that the Division Bench which disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order had the jurisdiction to hear, inter alia, the following matters:

3.

“For admission, hearing, order matters and applications therein:

(A) All Criminal Writ Petitions and Applications for quashing of FIRs, C.R., Charge Sheet and challenging order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C./175(3) of BNSS from the year 2023 onwards. ” (bold in original)

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the Division Bench had the jurisdiction to hear criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs, C.R. and Charge-Sheet under the BNSS and having regard to the fact that mere filing of a chargesheet under Section 193, does not render a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR infructuous, the order impugned is unsustainable in law.

5. The order in Neeta Singh (supra), relied on by the Bombay High Court, incidentally was passed by us. Since a question has been raised as to whether the ratio of the decision in Neeta Singh (supra) has correctly been applied by the Bombay High Court while disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner, the need has arisen to clarify the point.

6. There is a distinct factual dissimilarity between the writ petition presented before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Allahabad High Court] from which the special leave petition in Neeta Singh (supra) arose and the present writ petition, out of which this special leave petition arises.

7. The writ petition in Neeta Singh (supra) was only under Article 226 of the Constitution, as evident from the first sentence of the relevant order. Moreover, a bare reading of paragraph 8 thereof reveals that the relevant Bench's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1