Justice Deshwal noted that recent Supreme Court rulings had expanded the interpretation of the High Court’s powers, making the old seven-judge bench decision “obsolete.”
Prayagraj, May 29 — The Allahabad High Court has referred a critical legal issue to a nine-judge bench. The matter concerns the power of High Courts to quash a First Information Report (FIR) using their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, which is now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
This issue was earlier settled by a seven-judge bench in the 1989 case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others, where the court had ruled that Section 482 cannot be used to quash an FIR, and the correct legal route would be to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, in a fresh case before the Allahabad High Court, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting as a single-judge bench, has respectfully disagreed with the old ruling and referred the matter to a larger bench of nine judges.
Justice Deshwal noted that recent Supreme Court rulings had expanded the interpretation of the High Court’s powers, making the old seven-judge bench decision “obsolete.”
In his detailed 43-page order passed on May 27, the judge observed:
“This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court.”
Despite this, the judge emphasised the importance of judicial discipline and stare decisis — a legal principle which means courts should follow earlier precedents unless they are clearly overruled.
“Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges,” he stated.
The court added:
“This referral was necessary as the judgement in the Ramlal Yadav case, which had not been explicitly reversed or overruled but had become ‘obsolete’, was rendered by a bench of seven judges.”
The court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC, dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court.
In this case, the petitioners were challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Chitrakoot, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 156(3) CrPC), which directed the police to register an FIR against them.
The FIR contained serious allegations under the following laws:
- Section 498A IPC – cruelty by husband or his relatives
- Section 323 IPC – causing hurt
- Section 504 IPC – intentional insult
- Section 506 IPC – criminal intimidation
- Section 342 IPC – wrongful confinement
- Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
The Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition, arguing that based on the Ramlal Yadav judgment, the High Court cannot quash the FIR using Section 528 (earlier 482) and the petitioners should have approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Deshwal pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1990) had already examined almost all the earlier rulings referred to in the Ramlal Yadav case. The apex court had greatly widened the scope under which High Courts could intervene during an ongoing police investigation.
The judge said:
“In the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, not only in cases where the FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure.”
He also referred to another key Supreme Court judgement in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra (2021), which supported the view that High Courts have wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs.
Further strengthening this interpretation, Justice Deshwal cited the recent 2025 judgement in Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court clearly ruled:
“It was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.”
