HCs Must Decide FIR Quashing Petitions On Merits, Instead Of Disposing Them Asking Police To Follow Arrest Guidelines: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to dispose of the quashing petition without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the guidelines regarding an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its merit.

“…once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court held.

The dispute between the parties concerns access to the burial ground at the public graveyard (Qabristan) at Village Dundahera, Ghaziabad, leading to the registration of an FIR.

The appellants-petitioners approached the High Court for the quashing of the FIR, but the High Court, without considering the merits of the challenge, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the concerned Police to follow the order passed in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the accused persons.

Allowing the appeal, the bench noted that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR without considering the merits of the matter.

“when petitioner(s) have sought quashing of the FIR, the High Court ought to have considered the merits of the matter and decided the same one way or the other, considering the material available and the applicable law.”, the court observed.

To recall, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880, a four-step process was laid down that ought to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions.

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

Referring to the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), the Court noted that the High Court had disposed of the quashing petition mechanically, without deciding the petition on its merits.

“...the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering afresh on merits.”, the court held.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: MD. MASHOOD & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UP & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Achyut Saxena, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv. Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv.