The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s order granting indirect arrest protection while hearing an FIR quashing plea, reiterating that such relief cannot be granted without hearing the de facto complainant or recording prima facie grounds for quashing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing procedural fairness and limits on High Court powers in FIR quashing proceedings, the Supreme Court of India on January 19, 2026, set aside an order of the Telangana High Court which had directed the police to follow safeguards under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), earlier Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, while dealing with the accused.
The Supreme Court held that such directions could not have been issued without first hearing the de facto complainant, especially when the petition before the High Court was one seeking quashing of the FIR.
Background of the Case
The accused persons had approached the Telangana High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against them under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. At the admission stage itself, the High Court disposed of the petition without issuing notice to either the State or the de facto complainant, Practical Solutions Inc.
The High Court directed:
- The accused is to appear before the Investigating Officer, and
- The police are to strictly follow Section 35(3) BNSS and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Challenge Before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, Practical Solutions Inc., represented by Senior Advocate R. Basant, approached the Supreme Court contending that:
- The High Court should not have entertained the quashing petition without hearing the de facto complainant.
- The matter was disposed of on the very first day, without issuing notice to any party.
- Directing compliance with Section 41-A (now Section 35(3) BNSS) amounted to granting substantive protection to the accused, even though the High Court had not examined whether a prima facie case for quashing was made out.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court found merit in the procedural objections raised by the appellant. While refraining from commenting on the merits of the FIR or allegations, the bench made several crucial observations:
1. Violation of Natural Justice
The Court held that failure to hear the de facto complainant vitiated the High Court proceedings, particularly when the petition was finally disposed of at the admission stage.
2. Improper Grant of Protective Directions
The Court noted that when a petition seeks quashing of an FIR, the High Court cannot indirectly grant relief to the accused by issuing directions under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) BNSS unless it records a prima facie satisfaction that the FIR does not disclose a cognisable offence.
The bench relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein the Supreme Court had cautioned High Courts against passing interim or final orders that stall the investigation, or granting protections to accused persons while dealing with FIR quashing petitions.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Telangana High Court’s order dated 26 November 2025.
- Remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.
- Directed the High Court to issue notice to the de facto complainant and hear all parties before passing a final order.
- Clarified that no coercive steps shall be taken against the accused persons until the High Court decides the matter afresh.
Case Title:
Practical Solutions Inc (Thru Authorised Representative) Versus The State of Telangana & Ors.
DIARY NO.953 OF 2026
READ ORDER
