Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In some cases, courts have explicitly noted that allegations under these sections are mutually exclusive or that the ingredients do not attract, but this alone is insufficient for quashing; the court prefers to allow investigation to proceed unless the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd. ["Pinak Bose vs State of West Bengal - Calcutta"], ["SHAH FAISAL EQUBAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand"]
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of criminal law, the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) can set off a cascade of legal proceedings, often causing significant distress to the accused. A common defense strategy is to petition for quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. But what if the FIR incorrectly cites Sections 316 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—offenses akin to criminal breach of trust and cheating under the erstwhile IPC Sections 406 and 420? Is a mere typographical or sectional error enough to quash it, especially when allegations point to dishonesty?
The short answer: No, a wrong mentioning of Sections 316 and 318 is not a ground for quashing an FIR if there is evident dishonesty or a prima facie caseKim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113. Courts prioritize substance over form, focusing on whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offense supported by evidence. This blog delves into the legal nuances, judicial precedents, and practical insights to help you navigate this terrain.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on judicial trends and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS, 2023, address serious economic offenses:- Section 316: Criminal breach of trust, involving dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property (e.g., Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) for various forms like embezzlement) SMT. KAMLA THAKUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11457.- Section 318: Cheating, where inducement leads to wrongful loss or gain (e.g., 318(3), 318(4)) RANGA MOUNIKA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15165.
These replace IPC Sections 405/406 and 420, respectively, and are non-compoundable cognizable offenses. An FIR under these often arises in commercial disputes, investments, or trust violations Rana Ram S/o Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Another - 2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3436.
The question arises: Wrong mentioning of sections 316 and 318 is not a ground for quashing of FIR there being a dishonesty. Courts agree—errors in section numbering do not invalidate proceedings if the facts allege mens rea (dishonest intent) and a cognizable offense Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113.
Courts invoke inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash FIRs that abuse the process of law or cause miscarriage of justice Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113. Key tests include:- Do allegations, even if taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offense?- Is there prima facie evidence supporting mens rea?- Would continuation amount to harassment on frivolous grounds? Jitain Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 601
As held, asking a person to stand trial will be nothing but abuse of process of law if the FIR does not disclose a prima facie case Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113. However, courts refrain from deep evidence appraisal at this stage, leaving it to investigation Jitain Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 601.
From established precedents:- Vague or Unsupported Allegations: Quashing is warranted if claims are speculative or false Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113.- Evidence Assessment: FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all imputations; if allegations support a cognizable offense, investigation proceeds Jitain Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 601.- Mens Rea Requirement: Dishonest intent must be averred; mere civil disputes don't qualify as criminal breach/cheating Somjeet Mallick VS State Of Jharkhand - 2024 7 Supreme 620.- Serious Offenses Caution: In economic crimes under Sections 316/318, courts exercise restraint unless abuse is clear Aamna Chhatari VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 776.
A clerical error in citing sections doesn't derail the FIR if dishonesty is alleged. For instance:- In an embezzlement case under Sections 316(5), 318(4), and 61 BNS, the court dismissed quashing, noting FIRs should not be quashed unless allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence SMT. KAMLA THAKUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11457. It emphasized sparing use of Section 482 jurisdiction.- Another petition for Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(4) BNS failed as facts supported offenses Gaurav Mali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 42403.
Courts look beyond labels to the substance: If facts narrate entrustment, misappropriation, or inducement with dishonesty, proceedings continue Rana Ram S/o Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Another - 2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3436. Sections 405 and 420 of the IPC operate in distinctly different domains i.e. entrustment versus inducement—analogous to BNS equivalents Rana Ram S/o Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Another - 2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3436.
Quashing may occur in limited cases:- Mutual Settlements: Parties compromising via joint memos can lead to quashing, even for non-compoundable offenses, if it serves justice RANGA MOUNIKA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15165. The court acknowledged the settlement and allowed the petition in interest of justice.- No Prima Facie Offense: In a commercial dispute mimicking IPC 406/420 (BNS 316/318), FIR quashed for lacking cognizable elements; preliminary inquiry needed Rana Ram S/o Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Another - 2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3436.- Personal Disputes: For non-compoundable offenses like Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS with trademarks, quashing allowed post-amicable resolution if no public peace impact Pushpendra Jain vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 663. The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace.- Fraudulent Schemes: However, in investment scams under 316(2), 318(4), courts deny quashing, stressing investigation Vuenow Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(All) 2152. Allegations in the FIR indicated a prima facie case of cognizable offences.
Limitations:- No quashing on mere denial or early-stage evidence lack Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 113.- Disputed facts require probe; not for Section 482 Jaspal Singh Randhawa VS State Of Punjab - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1001. Such a matter is subject of investigation and appreciation by trial Judge.
These illustrate courts' balanced approach, rarely quashing on technicalities like wrong sections if dishonesty persists.
Courts advise: Judicial discretion should be exercised judiciously, balancing the need for justice with the prevention of frivolous proceedings.
Navigating FIR quashing requires nuanced understanding. Stay informed, act swiftly, and seek expert counsel to protect your rights.
References:1. Kim Wansoo VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 1 Supreme 1132. Jitain Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 6013. Aamna Chhatari VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 7764. SMT. KAMLA THAKUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 114575. RANGA MOUNIKA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15165... (full list as per sources)
#QuashingFIR #BNS316318 #CriminalLaw
Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318 (4) of BNS do not attract and both the offences cannot go together. There is no intention to deceive respondent No.2. ... .1306 of 2025 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘BNS’). ... Whether the petitioner has committed the offenc....
Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318 (4) of BNS do not attract and both the offences cannot go together. There is no intention to deceive respondent No.2. ... .1306 of 2025 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘BNS’). ... Whether the petitioner has committed the offenc....
He further contended that the allegation of criminal breach of trust under section 316 BNS and cheating under section 318 BNS arising from the same transaction are mutually exclusive and therefore invocation of both sections is contradictory. ... 316(2)/316(5) of the BNS. ... Petitioners herein have challenged the impugned proceeding being Maynaguri P.S. case no. 122 of 2025 under section 316 (2)/ 316 (5)/ 318 (4)/338/61(2)/3 (5) of BNS 2023 pending ....
(A) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61 - Quashing of FIR - Petition to quash FIR for embezzlement dismissed ... Based on the written report of respondent No. 2, the Police Station Patna, District Korea had lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 0274 of 2024 at Police Station Patna, District Korea (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61 of the BNS against the petitioner. ... Quash the First Information Report registered....
respondent South East CEN Crime Police against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316, 318(3) of BNS 2023 and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. ... (ii) The complaint/ FIR in Crime No.876/2024, dated 23.09.2024 of South East CEN Crime Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 316, 318(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000 , before the 45th ACMM, Bangalore ... ....
Case No. 557 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 3. ... P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that in view of the allegations made both the offences in respect of which FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners; therefore, at this nascent stage, the same ought not to be quashed. ... Under such circumstances, this Cou....
On such allegations, PS Neemuch City, District Neemuch registered FIR at Crime No.454/2024 for offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(4) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against accused Anil Kharol, Dashrath Kharol, Gaurav Mali(applicant), Rounak Gandhi and Rahul. ... 316(2), 316(4), 318(4) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ... Accordingly, it is directed that applicant Gaurav Mali S/o Balmukund Mali shall be released on....
Before parting, to sum up the discussion, it is considered imperative to direct the police officials in respondent State of Rajasthan that, before they register FIRs in matters of alleged offences under sections 405/406 and 420 of IPC [corresponding Sections 316 and 318 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS ... Reasons are not far to seek i.e. unless they approach this Court to seek quashing, they have to seek bail apprehending arrest resulting in delay of the entire process of their release.....
This petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023 for seeking quashing of the FIR No.340/2024 registered at Police Station Bagad Tiraya, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of B.N.S., 2023. 2. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that now on the same facts, another FIR bearing registration No.340/2024 has been registered by the respondent No.2 at Police Station Bagad Tiraya, District Alwar for the offences punishable under....
under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS. ... Bazaar– Bhatapara, for offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of the EC Act and and Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS. ... for interference or quashing of the FIR is made out. ... In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant exercise of inherent powers for ....
(FARJAND ALI, J.) 1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No. 404/2024 registered at Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and 103, 104 of trade mark act, 1999. The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace, using inherent powers to restore harmony. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable set....
(b) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (a) Call for records and issue order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other similar writ, thereby quashing the impugned FIR dated 24.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 463 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 316(2) BNS 2023 registered at P.S. Sector 58, Noida District Commissionerate. (c) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition is preferred inter alia with following reliefs :
Such a matter is subject of investigation and appreciation by trial Judge. Hence, it is not a case where perusal of FIR itself does not make out a case for registration of FIR and as such, there is no ground for quashing of FIR on this ground. As such, the judgments referred to and relied upon by learned senior counsel representing the petitioner in this behalf are not applicable to the present set of facts.
The statement of the informant Dr. Mirza Mumtaz Alli Baig recorded during investigation discloses that the petitioner was attending the “Satkar Polly Clinic”. The registers of the said Diagnostic Centres were also seized and statements of various persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Causing miscarriage - Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or ....
The statement of the informant Dr. Mirza mumtaz Alli Baig recorded during investigation discloses that the petitioner was attending the "satkar Polly Clinic". The F. I. R. was registered for alleged commission of offence under Sections 312/316/318 IPC read with Sections 23/25 of the pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex Selection) Act, 1994. The registers of the said Diagnostic Centres were also seized and statements of various persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After such verification, the said authority sealed the said D....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
