FIR Quashing After Charges Are Framed: Powerful 2026 Guide
Quashing of FIR in Chandigarh High Court: Advocate Vikram Singh
June 13, 2026Can the Punjab and Haryana High Court Quash an FIR After Charges Are Framed?
FIR Quashing After Charges Are Framed is legally possible in fit cases. Can the Punjab and Haryana High Court quash an FIR after charges are framed? Yes. Even after the police have filed a charge-sheet and the trial court has formally framed charges, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh continues to hold the power to put an end to a criminal case in fit cases. It does so by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the provision that has replaced the old Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The stage of the case raises the bar, but it does not shut the door.
In short: Framing of charges does not make a quashing petition incompetent. What is sought to be quashed at that stage are the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR and charge-sheet — on grounds such as a settlement, an absence of any prima facie case, or abuse of the process of court.
- Can the High Court Quash an FIR After Charges Are Framed?
- Section 528 BNSS and the FIR Quashing Powers of the High Court
- Difference Between Criminal Revision and an FIR Quashing Petition
- When Can Criminal Proceedings Be Quashed After Charges Are Framed?
- Case Study 1 – Quashing After Charges Following a Settlement
- Case Study 2 – Quashing of an FIR in a Property Dispute
- Important Supreme Court Judgments
- More Guides in Our Quashing of FIR Series
- Frequently Asked Questions
FIR Quashing After Charges Are Framed: The Legal Position
The question we are most often asked at the High Court is a practical one: the FIR is old, the charge-sheet is in, charges have already been framed, and the trial is about to begin — is it now too late to approach the High Court? The honest answer is that it is harder, but it is far from hopeless. For the wider framework, start with our complete guide to quashing of FIR in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The power to quash is not tied to any particular stage of the proceedings. The inherent power of the High Court is wide enough to be invoked at the FIR stage, after the charge-sheet, after framing of charges, during trial, and in rare cases even after conviction (in compromise matters of a civil character). What changes from stage to stage is not the existence of the power but the standard the petitioner must meet and the material the court will look at.
One technical clarification matters here. Once a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, the proceedings travel beyond the four corners of the FIR. So, strictly speaking, what the High Court quashes at the post-charge stage are the consequential criminal proceedings emanating from that FIR, and not merely the FIR in the abstract. The relief, however, is the same in effect: the criminal case against the accused comes to an end.
Section 528 BNSS and the FIR Quashing Powers of the High Court
Section 528 BNSS preserves, word for word in substance, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS that were earlier exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It saves the High Court’s power to pass orders necessary (i) to give effect to any order under the BNSS, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Because Section 528 BNSS is the successor of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the entire body of Supreme Court precedent built around Section 482 continues to govern quashing petitions filed under the new Code. The provision is not a fresh right of appeal; it is a discretionary, residuary power to be used sparingly and with circumspection. But where it is warranted, it is decisive.
Petitions for quashing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court are now correctly titled as petitions under Section 528 BNSS (often filed as CRM-M matters). For the procedural steps, see our guide on how to file a quashing petition (CRM-M) in the High Court. The grounds, the supporting documents — the FIR, the charge-sheet, the settlement deed where applicable, the no-objection affidavit of the complainant — remain the working tools of the practitioner.
Difference Between Criminal Revision and an FIR Quashing Petition
Accused persons frequently confuse the two remedies. They are distinct in source, scope and effect.
- Criminal revision lies under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS (the earlier Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.). It is a supervisory remedy directed at the correctness, legality or propriety of a specific order — for example, an order framing charges or refusing discharge. Revision against purely interlocutory orders is barred.
- A quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS is an exercise of inherent power aimed at the continuation of the prosecution itself. It is the appropriate vehicle where the relief sought is the termination of the proceedings — on a settlement, on the absence of a prima facie offence, or because the prosecution is an abuse of process.
A useful rule of thumb: if the grievance is that a particular order is wrong in law, revision is the route; if the grievance is that the prosecution as a whole should not be permitted to go on, the quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is the route. The two cannot be pursued simultaneously over the same subject matter.
When Can Criminal Proceedings Be Quashed After Charges Are Framed?
Drawing on the settled principles, the Punjab and Haryana High Court will ordinarily consider FIR quashing after charges are framed in situations such as these:
- A genuine compromise in a private, civil-flavoured dispute. Offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, matrimonial or property transactions — typically Sections 318/316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (cheating and criminal breach of trust, formerly Sections 420/406 IPC) — can be quashed on a bona fide settlement, even at an advanced stage. See our focused guides on FIR quashing on compromise under Section 528 BNSS, and on quashing in cheque bounce (Section 138 NI Act) matters, property disputes and matrimonial / 498A FIRs.
- No prima facie case. Where, even taking the prosecution material at its highest, the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against the accused.
- Abuse of the process of court. Where the prosecution is mala fide, vexatious, or instituted with an oblique motive to wreak vengeance or to arm-twist the accused in what is essentially a civil dispute.
- Charge erroneously framed for an offence unsupported by material. Here the court may set aside the order of framing of charge qua that offence — and, importantly, where other offences survive, the correct course is to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration under Section 237 BNSS, rather than to terminate the entire prosecution.
Heinous and serious offences — murder, rape, offences under special statutes with a strong public element — stand on a different footing and are not quashed merely because the parties have settled.
Case Study 1 – FIR Quashing After Charges Were Framed Following a Settlement
Names and identifying details withheld for client confidentiality. The following is a representative scenario of the type of matter handled by the firm and is not a reproduction of any specific reported judgment.
Facts: A buyer paid substantial consideration for a commercial unit in a Tricity project. When possession was delayed and the money was not refunded, he lodged an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust against the promoters.
Charges: The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 IPC, and the Sessions Court framed charges.
Settlement: With the trial already underway, the parties were brought to the table. A written settlement deed was executed, the agreed sum was paid, and the complainant filed a no-objection affidavit.
Grounds for quashing: Acting as counsel, the firm filed a petition under Section 528 BNSS, relying on the predominantly civil and commercial flavour of the dispute, the genuineness of the compromise, the complainant’s status as the sole aggrieved person, and the consequent remoteness of any conviction.
Outcome: The High Court, after verifying the compromise, brought the proceedings to a close — demonstrating that a settlement-based quashing is achievable even after framing of charges.
Case Study 2 – Quashing of an FIR in Chandigarh High Court in a Property Dispute
Representative scenario; details anonymised. Not a specific reported case.
Facts: A dispute over an agreement to sell immovable property was given a criminal colour. The seller, facing a civil suit for specific performance, was also made an accused in an FIR alleging cheating.
Charges: Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
Grounds for quashing: The firm argued that the dispute was wholly civil in nature, that a parallel civil suit on the same subject matter was already pending, and that the criminal machinery had been set in motion only to pressurise the accused — a textbook abuse of process.
Outcome: The High Court accepted that no public element was involved and that permitting the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of court, and quashed the proceedings.
Important Supreme Court Judgments
The quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is anchored in a consistent line of Supreme Court authority:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — lays down the well-known categories in which an FIR can be quashed, including where the allegations do not make out any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide.
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 — recognises the High Court’s power to quash on a compromise in disputes with an overwhelmingly civil flavour.
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 — frames practical guidelines, including that the timing of the settlement (even after charges) is a relevant but not fatal factor.
- Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 — consolidates the governing principles for compromise-based quashing.
- State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 — clarifies that heinous and serious offences are not to be quashed merely on settlement.
- Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 — confirms that a quashing petition does not become infructuous simply because a charge-sheet has been filed; the inherent power survives that stage.
The Supreme Court has also drawn a vital distinction at the charge-framing stage: where a charge for a particular offence is found to be unsupported by material, the proper course is to set aside the order of framing of charge for that offence and remand the matter for fresh consideration under Section 237 BNSS — not to quash the entire prosecution when other charges are sustainable on the record. This protects an accused from an erroneous charge while preserving a legitimate prosecution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Punjab and Haryana High Court quash an FIR after charges are framed?
Yes. Under Section 528 BNSS the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings even after charges have been framed, in fit cases such as a genuine compromise, absence of a prima facie offence, or abuse of process.
What is Section 528 BNSS?
Section 528 BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High Court — to give effect to orders under the Code, to prevent abuse of process, and to secure the ends of justice. It is the successor to Section 482 of the old Cr.P.C.
Is a quashing petition maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the filing of a charge-sheet does not render a quashing petition infructuous. The inherent power continues to be available at that stage.
What is the difference between criminal revision and a quashing petition?
Revision (Sections 438/442 BNSS) targets the correctness of a specific order, such as the order framing charge. A quashing petition (Section 528 BNSS) seeks to end the prosecution itself.
Can an FIR be quashed on a compromise after charges are framed?
Yes, where the dispute is predominantly civil, commercial, financial or matrimonial in nature and the settlement is genuine and voluntary, even a post-charge compromise can lead to quashing.
Which offences are usually not quashed on settlement?
Heinous and serious offences with a strong public element — such as murder, rape and many offences under special statutes — are ordinarily not quashed merely because the parties have compromised.
What documents are needed for a settlement-based quashing petition?
Typically the FIR, the charge-sheet, the duly executed settlement/compromise deed, and the complainant’s no-objection affidavit, along with proof of identity and payment where relevant.
Does the complainant have to appear in the High Court?
In compromise matters the complainant is generally required to appear before the High Court or a designated authority to get the factum of the compromise verified.
What happens if only one charge was wrongly framed?
The court may set aside the order framing that particular charge and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration under Section 237 BNSS, while the remaining charges continue.
How long does FIR quashing take in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?
Timelines vary with the cause-list and the nature of the matter. Settlement-based petitions where the complainant cooperates are usually decided faster than contested quashing petitions.
More Guides in Our Quashing of FIR Series
This article is part of our dedicated resource series on quashing of FIR before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Explore the related guides below:
- Quashing of FIR in the Punjab and Haryana High Court – Complete Guide
- Section 528 BNSS – Inherent Powers of the High Court Explained
- FIR Quashing on the Basis of Compromise / Settlement
- Quashing of FIR in Cheque Bounce (Section 138 NI Act) Cases
- Quashing of FIR in Property & Civil-Flavoured Disputes
- Quashing of 498A / Matrimonial FIRs
- Bhajan Lal Guidelines – When Can an FIR Be Quashed?
- How to File a Quashing Petition (CRM-M) in the High Court
Disclaimer: This article is intended purely for general information and legal awareness in accordance with the Bar Council of India rules. It does not constitute legal advice or an advertisement or solicitation of work. Outcomes in criminal matters depend on the specific facts of each case. Readers are advised to consult a qualified advocate before acting on any information contained herein.
