Section 528 BNSS: Analysis of Its Relevance to Interlocutory Orders

Examining the Use of Section 528 BNSS to Challenge Interlocutory Orders in Criminal Proceedings

The transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has brought significant focus to the mechanisms used to ensure that the legal process remains a tool for justice rather than an instrument of harassment. At the center of this evolution is Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which succeeds the well-known Section 482 of the CrPC. This provision serves as a critical safeguard, granting High Courts the inherent power to intervene in criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the court's process.

A recurring legal challenge in criminal litigation is the treatment of interlocutory orders. Because these orders are interim and do not finally resolve the rights of the parties, they are generally shielded from revision to prevent trials from becoming endless cycles of appeals. However, the question remains: What is the relevance of Section 528 BNSS to interlocutory orders, and when can the High Court legally override the general bar on revising such decisions?

The Nature of Interlocutory Orders and the Statutory Bar

In criminal law, interlocutory orders are temporary decisions made during the course of a trial. These may include orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, the direction for forensic examinations, or the interim release of seized property. Historically, and continuing under the alignment of the BNSS, revision petitions against purely interlocutory orders are barred to ensure the streamlined progress of trials.

The judiciary has consistently noted that An interlocutory order does not determine rights or liabilities of parties and is not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 316. Despite this restriction, Section 528 BNSS acts as a discretionary valve. While statutory remedies like revision may be unavailable for interim orders, the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked when a statutory remedy falls short or when the order in question causes an injustice so grave that it transcends the merely interlocutory label 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1492.

Distinguishing Interlocutory from Intermediate Orders: The Feasible Test

To prevent the misuse of inherent powers, courts employ a specific standard to determine whether an order is truly interlocutory or if it is an intermediate order that warrants interference. The feasible test is applied here: the court examines whether the resolution of the objection raised would effectively end the proceedings.

As established in recent jurisprudence, The feasible test is that after considering the objections raised by the party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so, any such order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1476 and 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1492. If an order effectively decides a substantial right or terminates the trial's progress, it is deemed revisable, and Section 528 BNSS becomes a viable avenue for relief 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1772.

Practical Applications of Section 528 BNSS in Quashing Proceedings

High Courts frequently utilize Section 528 to quash proceedings that stem from interlocutory disputes or where the underlying allegations lack prima facie merit, thereby preventing the abuse of process.

Curbing Harassment in Consensual and Familial Disputes

The courts have frequently stepped in to quash FIRs filed under sections relating to cheating or dowry harassment when the evidence suggests the relationship was consensual or the claims were vague. In multiple instances, FIRs under IPC sections such as 406, 420, and 498A were quashed under Section 528 because the continuation of such proceedings would be an abuse of the legal system 2026 0 Supreme(Jhk) 333 and 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 677 and 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 616 and 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 732. This includes cases where omnibus dowry claims were filed following the submission of a divorce petition 2025 2 Supreme 404.

Addressing Misuse of Special Acts

The inherent powers are also used to correct casual investigations. For example, FIRs under the U.P. Gangsters Act have been quashed when the base FIRs were absent or the gang-charts provided by authorities were perfunctory. In such cases, the court observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant would result in undue harassment 2025 5 Supreme 333.

Forensic and Evidentiary Interlocutory Battles

Interlocutory applications for forensic evidence often trigger petitions under Section 528 BNSS. The court's approach varies based on the relevance and necessity of the evidence:

1. Crucial Evidence: In matters of cheque signature verification, a revision may be allowed to send disputed cheques to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) if the trial court's denial directly affects the rights of the parties, moving the order beyond a merely interlocutory status 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1772.
2. Irrelevant Requests: Conversely, requests for ink age determination may be dismissed if the signatures are undisputed, as scientific inability to determine ink age makes the request irrelevant 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22027.
3. Dilatory Tactics: In NI Act Section 138 cases, repeated requests for forensic reports after unfavorable results are often viewed as dilatory tactics, leading the court to dismiss such petitions 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1052.
4. Essential Testimony: Under Section 311 (or its BNSS equivalent), the recall of witnesses may be upheld to ensure justice, even if it causes delays, provided the evidence is essential to the case 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6955.

Limitations on the Exercise of Inherent Powers

Section 528 BNSS is an extraordinary power and is not intended to be a routine appellate substitute. Courts caution litigants against using it to bypass established statutory channels.

• Statutory Remedy Preference: If a specific remedy exists, such as applying for bail under Section 438 BNSS, the court generally expects that path to be pursued first. While the existence of a statutory remedy does not create an absolute bar, it remains a significant factor in whether the court will exercise its inherent powers 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465.
• Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs): The High Court typically will not use Section 528 to recall non-bailable warrants if there are existing remedies available within the trial court 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22459.
• Ownership Proof: In cases involving the seizure of property (such as gambling equipment), courts may remand the matter for reconsideration regarding ownership rather than quashing the order entirely 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 70.

Summary and Key Takeaways for Litigants

Navigating Section 528 BNSS requires a clear understanding of whether an order is purely interlocutory or intermediate. For those seeking relief, the following takeaways are essential:

• Analyze the Order's Impact: If an order is purely interim and does not determine final rights, statutory revision may be barred. However, if the order effectively culminates the proceedings, Section 528 BNSS becomes a powerful tool 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 316.
• Identify Abuse of Process: Quashing is most effective when dealing with vexatious FIRs where allegations lack prima facie merit, such as in cases of consensual relationships or vague allegations 2026 0 Supreme(Jhk) 333.
• Demonstrate Relevance: When requesting forensic evidence or witness recalls, the petitioner must demonstrate that the evidence is essential and not a tactic to delay the trial 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1052 and 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6955.
• Respect Statutory Hierarchy: Inherent powers are generally reserved for gaps in the law; existing statutory remedies should typically be exhausted first 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465.

Ultimately, Section 528 BNSS ensures that the pursuit of procedural efficiency does not override the fundamental requirement of justice. As the judiciary continues to implement the BNSS, these inherent powers remain the primary defense against the misuse of criminal machinery. Please note that legal outcomes are highly dependent on specific facts, and these insights should be viewed as general information rather than specific legal advice.