Section 528: Saving of inherent powers of High Court

Corresponding CrPC provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025)The Court quashed an FIR against a Member of Parliament for posting a video with a poem, holding that no offence was made out and that police and courts must protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
• Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024)Decided on CrPC section 482Storing or possessing child sexual exploitative material with the intent specified in Section 15 of the POCSO Act is an offence even without transmission; the High Court's quashing of the prosecution was set aside and the case restored to trial.

Questions on this section

6 questions in 24 of our papers cite Section 528. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977), the Supreme Court interpreted the bar on revision against interlocutory orders in Section 397(2) CrPC (now Section 438(2) BNSS). Which of the following reflects its holding?

   A.Every order passed before the final judgment is interlocutory and can never be challenged in revision or otherwiseB.The bar applies only to revision before the Sessions Judge and never to revision before the High CourtC.An order that would end the proceedings if the objection were upheld is not purely interlocutory, and inherent power remainsD.An interlocutory order can be questioned only in an appeal against the final judgment and never under the inherent power
   Show answer

2. 2. Section 528 of the BNSS saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders for each of the following purposes, EXCEPT:

   A.to review its own signed judgment on meritsB.to prevent abuse of the process of any CourtC.otherwise to secure the ends of justiceD.to give effect to any order under the Sanhita
   Show answer

3. 3. Consider the following statements based on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025): 1. A police officer who reads a poem complained of, to decide whether it makes out an offence under Section 196 BNS, does not thereby hold a preliminary enquiry barred under Section 173(1) BNSS. 2. Where the alleged offence falls under a law covered by Article 19(2) and Section 173(3) BNSS applies, the superior officer should normally permit a preliminary enquiry. 3. A High Court cannot quash an FIR while the investigation is at a nascent stage. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.1 and 3 onlyB.2 onlyC.1 and 2 onlyD.1, 2 and 3
   Show answer