In FIR Quashing Pleas, High Courts Cannot Grant Indirect Protection to Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on January 19, 2026 set aside an order of the High Court of Telangana which had directed the police to follow the safeguards under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS (previously Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) while dealing with accused persons, even though the petition before it was one seeking quashing of an FIR.

Court remanded the matter to the high court for fresh consideration after hearing the defacto complainant, Practical Solutions Inc.

The appeal arose from a criminal petition filed before the High Court of Telangana by the accused persons, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. By its order dated November 26, 2025, the high court disposed of the petition at the admission stage itself. Without issuing notice to the State or to the defacto complainant, the court directed the accused to appear before the investigating officer and instructed the police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, previously Section 41-A of the CrPC, and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Practical Solutions Inc., represented by senior advocate R. Basant, assailed the order before the Supreme Court, contending that the high court had committed a serious procedural error. It was argued that the quashing petition should not have been entertained without hearing the defacto complainant, especially when the matter was disposed of on the very first day without issuance of notice.

The appellant further submitted that the direction to follow Section 41-A amounted to granting substantive relief to the accused without examining whether the FIR deserved to be quashed at the threshold.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma noted the grievance raised by the defacto complainant and held that the impugned order could not be sustained on procedural grounds alone. While court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or on the correctness of the relief granted by the high court, it found that the failure to hear the defacto complainant vitiated the proceedings.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the November 26, 2025 order and remitted the matter to the High Court of Telangana with a direction to issue notice to the defacto complainant and hear all concerned parties before passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Court clarified that, until the high court decides the matter afresh, no coercive steps shall be taken against the accused persons.

Significantly, the bench also took exception to the nature of the directions issued by the high court. It observed that the petition before the high court was one seeking quashing of the FIR. In such proceedings, the high court ought not to have directed the investigating officer to comply with Section 41-A of the CrPC, as such a course indirectly amounts to granting protection to the accused without first recording a prima facie satisfaction that the FIR does not disclose a cognisable offence. 

In support of this view, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautioned high courts against passing interim or final directions that have the effect of stalling investigation or granting relief to accused persons while dealing with petitions for quashing of FIRs. With these observations, the appeal was disposed of.

Case Title: Practical Solutions Inc (Thru Authorised Representative)

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma