Writ under Art 226 can't be issued to quash FIR or chargesheet, once cognizance taken: Supreme Court

On September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified how Article 226 writ jurisdiction functions in a situation where a party wants a charge sheet or a First Information Report (FIR) to be quashed. The ruling was made by Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, reversing a July 1, 2025, order of the Bombay High Court.

The case had been instituted from an FIR filed at the Solapur MIDC Police Station on September 12, 2024, under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.The investigation being on its final leg while a writ petition questioning the FIR was pending, the charge sheet was submitted by the police in the trial court on May 14, 2025.

Reasoning of the High Court

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable any longer, relying on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (October 15, 2024). The reasoning of the High Court was that once a charge sheet has been filed, the FIR cannot be quashed by virtue of writ jurisdiction.The Supreme Court didn't agree. It explained that the High Court had erred in interpreting the Neeta Singh judgment and ignored the factual distinction between the two cases. By closing the doors to the petitioner without a hearing, the High Court denied the party a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction

The top court drew a clear distinction between two phases of criminal procedure:

1. Pre-cognizance by a court – A petition under Article 226 can be entertained to cancel an FIR or charge sheet.

2. Post-cognizance being taken – The writ remedy comes to an end, and the proper recourse is under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Section 528 entitles the courts not only to quash an FIR or charge sheet but also to cancel the order of cognizance, as long as the challenge is supported with good pleadings and factual rationale.

Relationship between Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS

The Supreme Court clarified that once cognizance is entered, parties are to avail themselves of the statutory machinery under Section 528 instead of going on under Article 226. The lodging of the charge sheet and the discretion of the court in taking cognizance bring into play a fresh legal situation, curtailing the ambit of writ jurisdiction.

Concurrently, the Court highlighted that the High Court has the jurisdiction to modify relief according to the circumstances. When Section 528 is called upon, it has to ascertain whether the facts support quashing rather than reject the petition simply because the charge sheet has been presented. Court's Directions

The Supreme Court decided the case at the stage of admission, without giving notice to the respondents. It revived the writ petition and ordered it to be re-heard by the Bombay High Court. The case was remanded to be heard afresh in accordance with the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment.

Importance of the Decision

This judgment clarifies the interplay between constitutional and statutory remedies. It lays down that:

•Article 226 jurisdiction can only be exercised up to the stage of taking cognizance.

•Parties then have to depend on Section 528 BNSS.

•High Courts ought not to reject petitions routinely on the filing of the charge sheet but rather have to entertain them under the relevant legal framework.

By establishing a clear demarcation between writ jurisdiction and statutory authority, the Court has provided for consistency and equity. The ruling emphasizes that although remedies are available, they have to be sought through the appropriate procedural avenue.

Case Title: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni versus State of Maharashtra and Another