Subject: GS 2: Polity and Government
Context: The Supreme Court clarified that States may close or withdraw protest-related criminal cases only by following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
UPSC Online Preparation
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Hearing
- SC Clarification:
- The Court held that governments cannot simply “withdraw an FIR” through an executive order; only the criminal proceedings arising from it may be terminated through procedures established by law.
- It also clarified that the expression “criminal antecedents” should be confined to grave and heinous offences, protecting students facing minor protest-related cases.
- Procedure to be Followed: States remain free to seek closure or withdrawal of cases, but only through legally recognised mechanisms such as a police closure report, withdrawal from prosecution, or judicial quashing, subject to statutory safeguards and judicial scrutiny.
About First Information Report (FIR)
- A First Information Report (FIR) is the earliest written information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, enabling the police to commence investigation and make arrests without a warrant.
- Legal Basis under BNSS: Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 mandates registration of information relating to a cognizable offence, replacing Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
- Provision for Zero FIR: Zero FIR, codified under Section 173(1) BNSS, allows a cognizable offence to be registered at any police station irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, after which it is transferred to the competent police station.
Legal Provisions for FIR Disposal
- By an Individual
- Compounding of Offences: Section 359 BNSS (earlier Section 320 CrPC) permits compromise and closure only for compoundable offences, subject to approval by the competent court where required.
- Quashing by the High Court: Under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), the High Court may quash an FIR to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, particularly in civil or matrimonial disputes, but generally not for heinous offences.
- Police Closure Report: Where investigation reveals insufficient evidence, the police may submit a Closure Report under Section 193 BNSS before the Magistrate, who has the final authority to accept, reject, or order further investigation.
- By the State
- Withdrawal from Prosecution: Section 360 BNSS empowers the Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the court, to withdraw prosecution before judgment after independently determining that the withdrawal serves public justice.
- Victim’s Right to be Heard: The BNSS mandates that the victim must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court permits withdrawal from prosecution.
Judicial Precedents on FIR Closure
- Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967): The Magistrate is not bound by a police closure report and may order further investigation or take cognisance.
- Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1986): Withdrawal from prosecution must serve public justice and requires independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and approval of the court.
- State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021): Courts cannot permit withdrawal merely because the government desires it; legislators enjoy no immunity from ordinary criminal law.
- Palaniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka (2026): Further investigation after a closure report ordinarily requires the Magistrate’s approval to prevent abuse of process.
Click to Know UPSC OnlyIAS Coaching Centres
Conclusion
The BNSS strengthens procedural safeguards by balancing efficient criminal investigation with judicial oversight, ensuring that criminal proceedings can be terminated only through lawful, transparent, and court-supervised mechanisms.
5 Aug 2026
