Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important judgment on quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019), decided on 02 September 2025 has reiterated the powers of the High Courts to quash criminal cases and also the four-step test to analyse whether the case is fit for quashing or not under section 482 CrPC or 528 BNSS. Accordingly, this judgment clarifies and reiterates the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and the corresponding power under Section 528 of the BNSS.

As this is one of the most recent Supreme Court decisions on the quashing of criminal proceedings, the judgment is analysed here to clarify the evolving principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS. Moreover, this article not only summarises the ruling but also synthesises the four-step test with the foundational principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, thereby offering a structured and practice-oriented framework for understanding when High Courts may legitimately quash criminal cases in India. Thus, the objective is to present a concise yet comprehensive exposition of the law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case – Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P

• Complaint: Filed in 2014 alleging incidents of 2010 vaguely alleging that
  • Rape on false pretext of marriage.
  • Abortion caused without consent.
  • Caste-based abuse (invoking SC/ST Act).
• Court Proceedings:
  • Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons under Section 376 IPC.
  • High Court (Allahabad, 2019) refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Appellant challenged in Supreme Court, claiming consensual relationship and abuse of process.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. Delay and Vagueness: Complaint lodged after 4 years with no convincing explanation. No specific dates or corroboration.
2. Frivolous Implication: Even parents of the appellant were unnecessarily arrayed as accused.
3. Abuse of Process: The nature of allegations did not inspire confidence and continuation of trial would tarnish reputation without advancing justice.
4. Principle of Judicial Duty: Courts must guard against prosecutions instituted for vengeance, harassment, or ulterior motives.

The Four-Step Test for Quashing

The Hon’ble Court crystallised a structured test (reaffirming Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013) as detailed below:

1. Soundness of Defence Material
   • Is the accused’s material sound, reasonable, indubitable, sterling, and impeccable?
2. Ability to Rule Out Prosecution’s Case
   • Does it clearly negate the factual assertions of the complaint, such that a reasonable person would dismiss them as false?
3. Unrefuted or Irrefutable Nature
   • Has the material remained unrefuted by the complainant, or is it incapable of being refuted?
4. Ends of Justice / Abuse of Process
   • Would allowing trial to continue result in abuse of process and failure of justice?

Importantly, the Court clarified that the test must be applied cumulatively and not in isolation. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that once all four conditions are satisfied, the High Court must quash the proceedings. In the above case, the Supreme Court found that all four requirements were satisfied and accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings, holding thatholidng that  “continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.”

General Grounds for Quashing

An article on quashing of criminal case would not be complete without mentioning case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories where High Courts may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings:

• No Prima Facie Offence:
  Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute any offence.
• No Cognizable Offence Disclosed:
  Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation under Section 156(1) CrPC.
• Uncontroverted Allegations Do Not Establish Offence:
  Where the evidence collected fails to make out a case against the accused.
• Allegations Are Absurd or Inherently Improbable:
  Where no prudent person could reasonably conclude that there is sufficient ground to proceed.
• Express Legal Bar:
  Where institution or continuation of proceedings is barred by law (e.g., lack of sanction).
• Proceedings Attended with Mala Fides:
  Where the criminal proceeding is manifestly malicious or instituted with ulterior motive for vengeance.
• Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour:
  Where the matter is essentially civil in nature but is dressed up as a criminal case to exert pressure.

Notably, the above Bhajan Lal categories are illustrative and not exhaustive; they guide High Courts in preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice. Therefore, each case, with its distinct facts and circumstances, presents an opportunity for counsel to apply the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar case with careful legal reasoning and strategic analysis to seek quashing of criminal proceedings where the continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

Related Precedents

• Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 – Four-step test for quashing reiterated.
• Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 – para – 30 – Duty of courts to closely scrutinise vexatious complaints.
• Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 CrLJ 2990 – Distinction between rape and consensual sex under promise of marriage.

Important Takeaways

• When moving quashing petitions under Section 528 BNSS, frame arguments explicitly under the four-step test.
• Emphasise delay, vagueness, absence of corroboration, and conduct of complainant.
• Support defence with impeccable material (documents, communications, undisputed records).
• Argue that continuation of trial would be a waste of judicial time and a misuse of criminal law.

Significance & Practice Guidance

1. Structured Framework: Above case provides a clear, step-by-step tool for High Courts while deciding petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).
2. Protection Against Malicious Litigation: Shields individuals from frivolous and vexatious complaints, especially in sensitive offences like rape on false pretext of marriage.
3. Consent v. Rape Distinction: Reinforces Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013 CrLJ 2990) — mere breach of promise to marry is not rape; intention at inception is key.
4. Judicial Economy: Emphasises saving court time by quashing hopeless prosecutions unlikely to result in conviction.
5. Conduct of Complainant: Refusal to even accept Supreme Court notice considered indicative of lack of seriousness.

The present analysis is authored from the perspective of Supreme Court practice and structured litigation strategy in quashing petitions.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the jurisprudence on quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS continues to evolve as a vital safeguard against abuse of the criminal process. The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the structured four-step test underscores that the inherent powers of the High Court are not merely discretionary but are to be exercised where continuation of prosecution would result in manifest injustice. Read together with the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, the decision strengthens the doctrinal foundation for quashing proceedings that are frivolous, mala fide, or legally unsustainable. Ultimately, the power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) remains a constitutional safety valve, ensuring that criminal law is used to advance justice, not as an instrument of harassment or oppression.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is Section 482 CrPC?
Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

2. What is Section 528 BNSS?
Section 528 BNSS corresponds to Section 482 CrPC and preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings.

3. When can High Courts quash criminal proceedings?
High Courts may quash proceedings where allegations do not disclose an offence, are malicious, legally barred, or amount to abuse of process, as laid down in Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar.

4. What is the four-step test for quashing?
The four-step test examines the credibility of defence material, its ability to negate allegations, whether it remains unrefuted, and whether continuation of trial would result in injustice.

---