Thu May 29 05:51:03 UTC 2025: **Summary:**
The Allahabad High Court has referred a legal question regarding its power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code) to a nine-judge bench. This referral comes after a single judge disagreed with a 1989 seven-judge bench ruling that such pleas are not maintainable and should instead be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The single judge cited Supreme Court decisions in *State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990)* and *Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021)*, deeming the older ruling obsolete. While invoking the principle of *stare decisis* (adherence to precedent), the judge felt a larger bench was necessary to reconcile conflicting interpretations and recent legal developments. The case stems from a plea challenging a lower court’s order to register an FIR and seeking its quashing, with the government arguing the plea was not maintainable based on the older ruling.
**News Article:**
**Allahabad High Court Refers FIR Quashing Powers to Nine-Judge Bench**
*Prayagraj, May 29, 2025* – A significant legal question regarding the power of the Allahabad High Court to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) has been referred to a nine-judge bench for further deliberation. The referral stems from a disagreement between a single judge and a 1989 seven-judge bench ruling concerning Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal expressed disagreement with the older ruling, which stated that pleas to quash FIRs under the aforementioned section were not maintainable and should be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution. He cited subsequent Supreme Court rulings, notably *State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990)* and *Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021)*, which, he argued, have broadened the scope of High Court intervention in such cases.
Despite acknowledging the principle of *stare decisis*, the judge deemed it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench to reconcile the conflicting interpretations and ensure clarity in the application of the law.
The case originated from a plea challenging a lower court’s order to register an FIR and seeking its quashing. The government advocate raised objections based on the 1989 ruling, arguing the plea was not maintainable.
The nine-judge bench will now consider the High Court’s power under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIRs, taking into account the evolving jurisprudence on the matter. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the handling of FIR challenges in Uttar Pradesh and across India.
First Piper 