"Supreme Court clarifies three legal routes to close protest-related FIRs"
FIR (First Information Report)
first written record of a cognisable offence, triggering police investigation under BNSS
Closure Report (Section 193 BNSS)
police report to magistrate stating insufficient material to proceed against accused
The First Information Report (FIR) is the foundational document of India's criminal justice system — the first written record of a cognisable offence received by the police, which sets the machinery of investigation in motion. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the FIR retains its central role as the trigger for police action. Critically, no executive authority — not a state government, not a minister, not a cabinet resolution — can cancel or revoke an FIR once registered. What can be terminated is the case that flows from the FIR, and only through prescribed legal routes.
The constitutional backdrop is equally important. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) guarantee citizens the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, but these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) in the interests of public order. When protests lead to FIRs, the tension between the state's power to prosecute and its political interest in restoring peace becomes acute. The legal framework governing FIR withdrawal is therefore not merely procedural — it is a structural safeguard ensuring that the executive cannot unilaterally extinguish criminal accountability, while also allowing the justice system to respond to genuine public-interest considerations.
There are three legally recognised routes through which a case arising from an FIR can be brought to an end, each operating at a different stage of the criminal process and involving different institutional actors.
Route One — Closure Report (Section 193, BNSS): If investigation does not disclose sufficient material to proceed, the police may file a closure report before the jurisdictional magistrate. However, the magistrate is not bound to accept it. In Abhinandan Jha v Dinesh Mishra (1967), the Supreme Court held that a magistrate may disagree with the investigating agency and either take cognisance of the offence or direct further investigation. More recently, in Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Ors v State of Karnataka (2026), the Supreme Court held that police must obtain the magistrate's leave before undertaking a fresh round of investigation after filing a closure report — a judicially evolved requirement even where the statute is silent. A government directive to close a case therefore does not, by itself, end the investigation; the report must still pass judicial scrutiny.
Route Two — Withdrawal from Prosecution (Section 360, BNSS): The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor may, with the consent of the court, withdraw from prosecution at any time before judgment is pronounced. …
Consider the following statements:
1.According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
2.The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention.
3.According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence.
How many of the above statements are correct?
With reference to the withdrawal from prosecution under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), consider the following statements:
1.The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from prosecution at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
2.The court's consent is mandatory for withdrawal from prosecution to take effect.
3.A government directive to the Public Prosecutor is sufficient to initiate withdrawal without any judicial scrutiny.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the magistrate's role when the police file a closure report under Section 193 of the BNSS?
Consider the following statements regarding the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS:
1.These powers can be used to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of the process of court.
2.These powers can be exercised at any stage, including when investigation is still underway.
3.Courts have held that these powers should be exercised liberally to protect accused persons from prolonged investigation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): A state government's political commitment to withdraw cases against protesters does not, by itself, legally close the FIR or the investigation.
Reason (R): Under the BNSS, an FIR once registered can only be cancelled by an executive order of the state government.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account