A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for quashing an FIR or charge-sheet once the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence; however, such relief may be sought under Section 528 of the BNSS.

ORDER

1. All these petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners invoking the powers of this court under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) inter alia with the prayers to quash and set aside the Supplementary Charge sheet (Criminal Case) No. 175428 of 2025, to quash the First Information Report No. 4 of 2016 registered with CID (Crime) Ahmedabad Zone and also to quash and set aside the summons dated 18th March 2026 issued against the petitioners by the learned trial court.

2. At the outset, Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Hardik A Dave has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of these petitions in view of the fact that cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the learned trial court against the petitioners, and therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the jurisdiction of this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution has seized to exist. He also submitted that provision of Article 227 of the Constitution has not been invoked and this bench is not assigned the roster for taking up the applications filed under Section 528 of the BNSS. He therefore submitted, not to entertain these petitions and relegate the petitioners to explore the alternative remedy.

3. As against this, learned Senior Counsels Shri Mihir Joshi and Shri Jal Unwala submitted that the powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution are inherent and they are not required to be invoked specifically. It was further submitted that the powers of this court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been invoked, and therefore, even if the petitions under Article 226 are assumed to be not maintainable, this court, still, can very well entertain these petitions and grant the relief.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. There is no dispute as regards the fact that, after registration of the offence, the investigating agency has concluded investigation and charge sheet has also been filed, and thereafter, cognizance of the offence has also been taken by learned trial court against the accused, including the petitioners, and summons have also been issued against them by learned trial court.

5. The Apex Court has recently considered this issue in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v/s State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC Online SC 1948) and clarified its position taken in the case of Neeta Singh v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 5761. Para 7 to 9 of the order of the Apex Court in case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (Supra) make the following reading:

“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. 6 Allahabad High Court. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 7 had not been invoked. Further still, the last sentence of the first paragraph records that cognisance of the offence had been taken by the relevant criminal court. It is in such circumstances that we had the occasion to uphold the order under challenge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the writ petition only under Article 226 of the Constitution was held to have become infructuous by reason of subsequent events, relying on several authoritative pronouncements of this Court including Constitution Bench decisions.

8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before th