CrPC Section - 482

In the landscape of Indian criminal law, inherent power is often misunderstood as a gift from the legislature. In reality, this authority is not "granted" by any statute. Instead, it is a power that is "saved" or preserved to ensure that the judiciary is never rendered helpless by the technicalities of procedure. It exists to ensure that the law remains a shield for the innocent rather than a tool of oppression. This power allows the High Courts to step in when the written law fails to account for a specific injustice, acting as a final safeguard for the citizen.

From Section 482 CrPC to Section 528 BNSS

India has recently undergone a monumental legislative shift with the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This new code replaces the long-standing Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Within this transition, the well-known Section 482 of the CrPC has moved to a new home under Section 528 of the BNSS. While the section number is different, the core essence of the law remains untouched. The legislature has recognized that the high courts must retain their traditional authority to intervene in criminal proceedings to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

The Thesis: The Persistence of the Triple Test

Although the legal "label" has changed from 482 to 528, the judicial philosophy governing it remains identical. The bedrock of this power continues to rest upon the Triple Test, which dictates that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction for three specific purposes:

• To give effect to any order passed under the Code.
• To prevent the abuse of the process of any Court.
• To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

These three pillars ensure that Indian criminal jurisprudence remains flexible, fair, and focused on substantive justice over mere procedural adherence. Even under the BNSS, these principles continue to serve as the ultimate check against judicial or investigative overreach.

The Survival of "Inherent Power"

The legal community can take confidence in the fact that the transition to the new criminal laws has not diluted the High Court’s fundamental authority. In fact, the text of Section 528 of the BNSS is virtually a mirror image of the erstwhile Section 482 of the CrPC. By retaining the exact phraseology, the legislature has made a conscious decision to preserve the "Triple Test" that governs the High Court’s inherent power.

Under the BNSS, the High Court continues to hold the power to:

• Give effect to any order passed under the Sanhita.
• Prevent the abuse of the process of any Court.
• Otherwise, secure the ends of justice.

This continuity ensures that decades of Supreme Court and High Court precedents, such as the landmark principles laid down in cases like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, remain applicable today. The judicial "soul" of the power is unchanged; only the statutory reference point has shifted.

The 2026 Reality: Which Law Applies?

As we navigate the legal landscape in 2026, a significant portion of current litigation involves what many experts call "transitional friction." Lawyers and litigants often find themselves at a crossroads when dealing with cases that began before the new laws took effect. Based on recent judicial guidance provided in late 2025 and early 2026, including key rulings from the Sikkim High Court and other constitutional courts, the following rules of thumb apply:

Handling Legacy FIRs

If a First Information Report (FIR) was registered during the IPC/CrPC era (prior to July 1, 2024), but the quashing petition or application is being filed now, the correct approach is to invoke Section 528 of the BNSS. Courts have clarified that since the application itself is being instituted after the new Sanhita came into force, the procedural law of the day, the BNSS, should be the one cited in the petition.

The Saving Clause (Section 531 BNSS)

The transition is governed by the "Savings Clause" found in Section 531 of the BNSS. This provision ensures that:

• Pending trials, inquiries, and investigations that commenced before July 1, 2024, will continue to be governed by the old CrPC.
• However, the High Court’s inherent power is viewed as a "procedural" tool. Therefore, for all fresh applications and petitions filed after the cutoff date, the court expects litigants to follow the new Sanhita.

Understanding this distinction is vital for maintaining the maintainability of your petitions. While the underlying investigation might follow old rules, the gateway to the High Court’s inherent power is now through Section 528.

The "Bhajan Lal" Standard in the BNSS Era

While the legal code has transitioned to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the "Gold Standard" for quashing an FIR remains the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. This foundational judgment continues to guide the High Courts in 2026, serving as the primary filter to identify and dismiss bad-faith prosecutions. Despite the shift to Section 528 of the BNSS, the judicial criteria for intervention remain consistent to ensure that the process of law is not weaponized.

High Courts frequently exercise their inherent power under the BNSS in the following key scenarios:

Civil Disputes in Criminal Garb

One of the most common grounds for quashing is when a purely civil, commercial, or matrimonial dispute is intentionally painted with a criminal brush to exert undue pressure. The courts remain vigilant against the misuse of the criminal justice system to settle scores that belong in civil or family courts. If the essence of the matter is a breach of contract or a settled matrimonial issue, the court will likely quash the proceedings to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Absence of Ingredients

The High Court will intervene where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if accepted at their absolute face value, do not constitute a cognizable offense. If the fundamental legal ingredients of the crime, such as dishonest intention in cheating cases or specific overt acts in other offenses, are missing from the narrative, the prosecution is deemed groundless. In such cases, allowing the trial to proceed would be a futile exercise and a waste of judicial time.

Legal Bar to Proceedings

Quashing is also warranted when there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings. This includes situations where the mandatory prior sanction from a competent authority has not been obtained or where the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. In these instances, the High Court uses Section 528 of the BNSS to stop proceedings that are legally unsustainable from the outset.

Latest Updates & Judicial Trends (2025-2026)

As a legal practitioner in 2026, it is crucial to look beyond the static text of the law and understand the evolving judicial trends. The High Courts, while interpreting Section 528 of the BNSS, are currently shaping three major trends that every lawyer must incorporate into their litigation strategy.

The "Preliminary Inquiry" Filter

A transformative change in the BNSS era is found in Section 173(3). This provision grants the police the discretion to conduct a 14-day preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for offenses punishable with 3 to 7 years of imprisonment. In 2026, we see High Courts increasingly scrutinizing cases where this step was bypassed. The judicial inquiry now frequently asks: "Why was a preliminary inquiry not conducted before this FIR was registered?" Failure to utilize this statutory filter, especially in matrimonial or commercial matters where the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari previously suggested inquiries, is emerging as a potent new ground for quashing under Section 528.

No "Mini-Trials" Allowed

The Supreme Court has remained steadfast—with significant reaffirmations as recently as late 2025 (such as in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan)—that the High Court cannot exceed its jurisdiction at the Section 528 stage. The mandate is clear: the High Court is not a trial court. It cannot appreciate evidence, weigh the credibility of witnesses, or conduct a "mini-trial" to decide if the accused is guilty or innocent. The court’s role is strictly limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists on the face of the records. If the allegations disclose an offense, the court will typically allow the investigation or trial to proceed.

The Rise of Restorative Justice

Perhaps the most fascinating trend in 2025-2026 is the judicial pivot toward Restorative Justice. While the BNSS officially introduces "Community Service" as a punishment for minor crimes, High Courts are innovatively applying this concept when quashing "non-serious" FIRs. Where parties have reached a settlement in cases like petty brawls or compoundable offenses, courts are increasingly quashing the FIR on the condition of a "social dividend." We are seeing orders directing petitioners to:

• Plant a specific number of trees and provide geo-tagged photos as proof.
• Serve in community kitchens or shelters for a set duration.
• Assist traffic police at major intersections to understand the value of public order.

Quick Comparison Table

To help you transition your practice smoothly, here is a quick reference guide comparing the old and new provisions:

Conclusion

The transition from Section 482 of the CrPC to Section 528 of the BNSS represents a structural modernization rather than a philosophical departure. While the statutory numbering has shifted, the High Court’s inherent power remains an essential safety valve within the Indian criminal justice system, ensuring that procedural rigidity does not result in substantive injustice. As we navigate the complexities of 2026, the judiciary continues to rely on time-tested standards like the "Bhajan Lal" categories, while simultaneously embracing modern shifts such as restorative justice and mandatory preliminary inquiries. Ultimately, the inherent power of the High Court is a reminder that the law is a living organism designed to serve the ends of justice. For legal practitioners and litigants alike, success under the BNSS framework requires a blend of traditional legal rigor and an awareness of these evolving trends. By understanding that Section 528 is the "saved" guardian of fairness, one can effectively challenge malicious prosecutions and ensure that the process of law remains a pursuit of truth rather than a mechanism for harassment.