FIR Quashing Under Section 528 BNSS: Why the Allahabad High Court 9-Judge Bench Referral Changes Everything for UP Accused in 2026

In early 2026, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal of the Allahabad High Court — sitting at Lucknow — referred a fundamental question to a constitutional bench: can the High Court quash a First Information Report itself under Section 528 BNSS, or is it limited to quashing only the proceedings that flow from the FIR?

This is not a routine reference. Allahabad HC last constituted a nine-judge bench more than five decades ago. The court took this step because two earlier rulings were pointing in opposite directions and lower benches were issuing inconsistent orders to accused persons across UP.

• Ram Lal Yadav vs State of UP (1989) — a seven-judge bench had held that Section 482 CrPC (now mirrored by Section 528 BNSS) does not permit quashing of the FIR; the correct route was Article 226 of the Constitution
• Post-2024 trend — many single-judge benches were quashing FIRs under Section 528 BNSS directly, ignoring the 1989 line
• The constitutional question — whether the 1989 ratio still binds the court now that the entire criminal procedure code has been replaced by BNSS

Until the nine judges rule, every Lucknow bench dealing with a quashing matter must navigate two possible procedural paths — and the choice of path can decide whether your relief is granted at all.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inherent powers of the High Court that used to live in Section 482 CrPC now sit in Section 528 BNSS. The text is almost identical — but the legal context is not.

Feature	Section 482 CrPC (Pre-July 2024)	Section 528 BNSS (From July 2024)
Statutory source	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Purpose	Preserve inherent powers of HC	Preserve inherent powers of HC
Scope of "proceedings"	Quashing proceedings only (per Ramlal Yadav 1989 in UP)	Currently before 9-judge bench
Quashing FIR itself	Required Article 226 route in UP	Open question pending bench decision
Applies to FIRs after	Pre-1 July 2024 FIRs	FIRs registered on or after 1 July 2024

The practical effect is significant. If your FIR was lodged in March 2024, you fall under the old CrPC framework where Allahabad HC routinely insisted on the Article 226 route. If your FIR is from August 2025, you are squarely in BNSS territory — and your quashing petition must address the constitutional question head-on.

To understand why your quashing petition in Lucknow may take a different procedural route than one filed in Mumbai or Delhi, you have to understand Ram Lal Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1989). A seven-judge bench of the Allahabad HC held that Section 482 CrPC could not be used to quash an FIR itself. The only route to quash an FIR — as distinct from the proceedings — was a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This was always a UP-specific position. Other High Courts, including Delhi, Bombay, and Karnataka, freely quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC following the Supreme Court's settled framework in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992) — which laid down seven categories where an FIR can be struck down.

• When the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence
• When the allegations are inherently improbable
• When the case is manifestly attended with mala fide intent
• When there is an express legal bar to the proceedings
• When the dispute is purely civil being given a criminal colour
• When the FIR is filed solely to wreak personal vengeance
• When even on a plain reading no offence is made out

The 9-judge bench will now decide whether the 1989 Ramlal Yadav position survives the shift to BNSS, or whether Allahabad HC will finally align with the rest of the country. Until then, prudent counsel files in the alternative — invoking both Section 528 BNSS and Article 226 — so the petition survives whichever way the constitutional question is resolved.

If you are an accused in an FIR registered after 1 July 2024 in any UP district — Lucknow, Kanpur, Varanasi, Allahabad, Agra, Meerut, Gorakhpur — the 9-judge bench referral has three immediate consequences for you.

1. Pending petitions are not being dismissed — they are being heard on merits, but with a procedural caveat. Lucknow Bench judges are increasingly directing counsel to amend petitions to add Article 226 grounds in the alternative.
2. Interim relief is still available — stays on arrest, stays on filing of chargesheet, and stays on coercive process are being granted in deserving cases even before the 9-judge bench rules.
3. Bail strategy must be parallel — never pin your liberty on a quashing petition alone. File an anticipatory bail application simultaneously so that an investigation officer cannot arrest you while the constitutional question is pending.

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that delay in High Court proceedings cannot be used to deprive a citizen of liberty. But practical UP courtroom experience says: layered protection beats hopeful waiting. Discuss both quashing and bail in your first consultation with an advocate, not after a summons has already issued.

The procedural mechanics of filing a quashing petition at the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench have shifted since the 9-judge referral. Here is the realistic sequence for 2026.

1. Collect the certified FIR copy — obtain a certified copy from the police station or court of CJM, Lucknow. Without it, the petition will be returned at the registry.
2. Engage a vakalatnama with a Lucknow Bench enrolled advocate — only AOR (Advocate on Record) status at Allahabad HC can file the petition; verify your advocate's enrolment.
3. Draft in the alternative — title the petition "Application under Section 528 of BNSS read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India." This wording survives whichever way the 9-judge bench rules.
4. Annex the Bhajan Lal grounds — fit your case into one or more of the seven Bhajan Lal categories. A generic "false FIR" plea no longer survives scrutiny.
5. File with the Lucknow Bench registry — pay court fees as per the Allahabad HC Rules, schedule of fees for 2026.
6. Apply for an interim stay on arrest or chargesheet — this is the operative relief you actually need while the matter is heard.
7. Serve notice on the State of UP and the informant — through registered post and the Government Counsel's office.

The Lucknow Bench has been streamlining quashing listings — most petitions are listed for first hearing within 4 to 8 weeks of filing, provided the registry defects are zero.

Despite the constitutional uncertainty, the Lucknow Bench has continued to quash FIRs in clear-cut cases since the 9-judge reference. The unifying thread in successful petitions is that they fall squarely within Bhajan Lal categories and present zero factual dispute.

• Matrimonial cases that have been compromised — Section 498A IPC / Section 85-86 BNS matters where parties have settled and seek to end criminal proceedings; the Supreme Court's view in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) continues to apply
• Cheque bounce matters where settlement has been reached — Section 138 NI Act FIRs quashed routinely on compounding
• Pure property civil disputes given criminal colour — cases of trespass or cheating that are actually civil title disputes; refer such matters to civil property remedy first
• FIRs without prima facie offence — where even taking allegations at face value, no offence is made out under BNS
• FIRs filed in violation of statutory bar — second FIR on the same incident, or FIR filed despite a sanction requirement

What the court is being slower with: contested factual matters where it would need to evaluate evidence. Those, the court is now sending to trial — and your remedy there is bail and discharge under Section 250 BNSS, not quashing.

One scenario that every UP accused must prepare for: the 9-judge bench affirms Ramlal Yadav (1989) and holds that Section 528 BNSS does NOT permit quashing of the FIR itself in UP. What happens to your pending petition?

The answer depends on how the petition was drafted. If your counsel invoked only Section 528 BNSS without alternative Article 226 grounds, the petition may be dismissed as not maintainable — but you will be granted liberty to file a fresh writ. If your petition already invokes Article 226 in the alternative, the matter simply proceeds under the constitutional route without any loss of time or filing fee.

The lesson for clients filing now is clear:

• Do not file a "pure" Section 528 BNSS quashing — always couple with Article 226
• Do not delay filing in the hope that the 9-judge bench rules first — limitation, arrests, and chargesheets do not pause for constitutional questions
• Do not rely on a single-judge order from another bench as binding — until the 9-judge bench rules, conflicting orders are normal

For accused persons facing FIRs in non-compoundable serious offences — murder, rape, dowry death, NDPS — quashing is rarely the right remedy in any event. There, the focus should be on bail and anticipatory bail strategy, supported by detailed defence at the trial stage. Consult a Lucknow criminal lawyer early; a delayed strategy is a weaker strategy.

Advocate Onkar Pandey is a practicing lawyer at Lucknow High Court with extensive experience in criminal law, family law, and civil litigation. With a deep understanding of the Indian legal system and years of courtroom experience in Lucknow courts, Advocate Pandey provides practical legal guidance to clients across Uttar Pradesh. For legal consultation regarding FIR quashing under Section 528 BNSS, the 9-judge bench referral, or any other criminal matter before the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey for expert advice tailored to your specific situation.

Bar Council No: UP 4825-1999 | Office: Chamber A-406, High Court, Lucknow, Awadh Bar, UP 226001 | Phone: +91 98392 71553