Criminal procedure | Updated 19 October 2026

Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS: Inherent Powers of the High Court

The High Court's inherent jurisdiction enables it to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings and secure justice. The provision formerly contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is now reflected in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Current law: The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 528 is the corresponding provision for inherent powers. Section 531 contains important repeal and savings rules for proceedings pending at commencement.

What Section 482 CrPC provides

The statutory text of Section 482, titled Saving of inherent powers of High Court, reads:

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The provision is a saving clause: it recognises the High Court's pre-existing inherent jurisdiction rather than creating an unrestricted new appellate or investigative power. Read the official CrPC text on India Code.

Section 528 BNSS: Corresponding provision

Section 528 BNSS, also titled Saving of inherent powers of High Court, preserves the same three purposes in relation to orders and proceedings under the BNSS: giving effect to orders, preventing abuse of court process and securing the ends of justice. The official BNSS text contains the current provision.

Three recognised purposes of inherent powers

1. Giving effect to an order under the procedural law

The High Court may issue an appropriate direction necessary to make an order under the applicable criminal procedure law effective, subject to statutory restrictions.

2. Preventing abuse of the process of a court

The power may be invoked where continuing criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of judicial process, such as when the allegations, accepted at face value, do not disclose an offence.

3. Securing the ends of justice

In exceptional circumstances, the High Court may intervene to avoid a manifest injustice. This does not permit bypassing specific statutory procedures merely because another course seems convenient.

Quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings

A common application of inherent jurisdiction is a petition seeking quashing of an FIR, complaint or criminal proceedings. The court examines the nature of the allegations, the legal ingredients of the alleged offence, the available record and the stage of proceedings. It ordinarily does not conduct a mini-trial or resolve contested questions of fact.

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Supreme Court identified illustrative categories in which quashing may be appropriate. These include allegations that do not constitute an offence even if accepted, and proceedings manifestly instituted with mala fide intent. The categories are illustrative, not an automatic entitlement to quashing.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat ((2017) 9 SCC 641), the Supreme Court addressed quashing following settlements. Private or predominantly civil disputes may justify relief in suitable cases; serious offences affecting society ordinarily cannot be extinguished solely because the parties have compromised.

Limits on the High Court's inherent jurisdiction

The power is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly and with judicial care.
It is not a general substitute for appeal, revision, investigation or trial.
It cannot ordinarily be used to override an express statutory prohibition.
Disputed evidence and credibility are generally matters for the trial court.
A compromise does not automatically justify quashing serious or heinous offences.

Repeal and savings under Section 531 BNSS

Section 531(1) BNSS repeals the CrPC, 1973. Under Section 531(2)(a), appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations pending immediately before commencement are to continue under the former CrPC as provided in that clause. Other savings address earlier notifications, orders, powers, sanctions and related matters. The precise provision governing a petition depends on when the relevant proceeding commenced and its procedural posture; do not assume that every post-2024 filing is governed by Section 482 CrPC.

Practical considerations before filing

A petition invoking inherent jurisdiction should clearly identify the impugned FIR, complaint, order or proceeding; explain the legal ground for intervention; include relevant documents; and address any available statutory remedy. The petitioner should also explain why the case falls within the exceptional scope of the power rather than raising disputed factual defences requiring trial.

Frequently asked questions

What is Section 482 CrPC?

Section 482 CrPC preserved the High Court's inherent powers to give effect to orders under the Code, prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice.

Which BNSS provision corresponds to Section 482 CrPC?

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the corresponding inherent powers of the High Court.

Can the High Court quash an FIR?

The High Court may quash an FIR or criminal proceeding in appropriate circumstances, but this extraordinary power is exercised cautiously and not as a routine substitute for trial.

Does Section 482 CrPC apply after 1 July 2024?

The BNSS generally applies from 1 July 2024. Section 531 contains savings for certain pending proceedings under the former CrPC; the applicable provision depends on the procedural history.

Official statutory references

Note: This article provides general legal information, not case-specific legal advice. Consult the statutory text, current judicial decisions and applicable High Court rules before filing.