Two workhorse remedies carry most criminal-side challenges into the High Court of Delhi: the revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the petition under Section 528 BNSS invoking the High Court's inherent powers — the successor to the storied Section 482 CrPC. They overlap at the edges, and counsel often files one with the other in the alternative. But they are different instruments, with different scopes, different limitation realities and different orientations, and the choice between them is frequently determinative.
The two jurisdictions side by side
| Feature | Revision (Ss. 438/442 BNSS) | Inherent power (S. 528 BNSS) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Supervisory correction of subordinate courts\' orders | Residual, extraordinary power of the High Court |
| Target | An order or finding on the record below | FIRs, chargesheets, proceedings, abuses of process — with or without any order below |
| Test | Correctness, legality, propriety of the order | Necessity: give effect to orders, prevent abuse, secure the ends of justice |
| Interlocutory orders | Barred (S. 442(2)) | Reachable only in rare cases of patent abuse |
| Limitation | 90 days in practice | None, but laches counts |
| Typical prayers | Set aside charge order, discharge refusal, maintenance order, cognizance | Quash FIR/complaint/proceedings; expunge; prevent double jeopardy or vexatious re-litigation |
The quashing petition: what it can weigh
On a Section 528 petition to quash an FIR or chargesheet, the High Court asks whether, taking the allegations and collected material at face value, any offence is disclosed against the petitioner — it does not conduct a mini-trial, weigh defences requiring evidence, or assess witness credibility. The recognised categories include: allegations that do not constitute the offence even if accepted in full; legally barred proceedings; absurd or inherently improbable accusations; mala fide prosecutions with demonstrable ulterior motive; and, in appropriate private disputes, genuine settlements — subject to the gravity-based exceptions that keep serious and societal offences outside the compromise route.
The revision: what it can reach
The revisional court examines the record of the proceeding below. Its most trafficked stations in Delhi practice: orders framing charge or refusing discharge; summoning orders in complaint cases; maintenance orders under Section 144 BNSS (a designated revisable order); and final orders in proceedings where no appeal lies. Its discipline is equally important: revision is not a second appeal, findings of fact reasonably reached are respected, and the petitioner must show a jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or perversity — not merely that another view was possible.
Choosing — and pleading — correctly
- Attack on an order of the Magistrate or Sessions Court → revision first; invoke Section 528 only for what revision cannot reach.
- Attack on the existence of the prosecution itself — no offence disclosed, abuse, bar of law → Section 528 quashing petition.
- Never use Section 528 to sidestep an available appeal or revision; the objection is taken routinely and sustained regularly.
- Composite petitions ("528 read with 442") are common but should identify precisely which relief flows from which power.
- Annex the complete record below — FIR, chargesheet, impugned order, trial-court file where relevant; incomplete records stall both jurisdictions alike.
Both remedies are discretionary at bottom, and both reward the same virtues: a precisely identified error or abuse, a complete record, and candour about concurrent proceedings. The label on the petition opens the door; what is inside it decides the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 528 BNSS actually say?
It preserves rather than confers: nothing in the Sanhita limits or affects the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or to secure the ends of justice. Its classic uses are quashing FIRs and chargesheets, quashing proceedings on legal infirmity, and correcting abuses no specific provision reaches.
When is revision the correct remedy instead?
When a subordinate court has passed an order — on charge, cognizance, maintenance, interim matters — and the complaint is that the order is incorrect, illegal or improper. The High Court (or Sessions Court) examines the record's correctness, legality and propriety under the revisional jurisdiction. Where an express remedy of appeal or revision exists, the inherent power is not a substitute for it.
Can interlocutory orders be challenged at all?
Revision is barred against purely interlocutory orders under Section 442(2) BNSS. The intermediate category — orders that are not final but decide important rights, such as framing of charge — is revisable. For genuinely interlocutory orders causing grave abuse, the narrow route is Section 528, invoked sparingly and only where the order's operation defeats justice itself.
Is there a limitation period for a Section 528 petition?
No statutory limitation applies to the inherent power, unlike a revision, which carries a 90-day limitation in Delhi practice. But delay is never neutral: an FIR challenged years into the trial faces the objection that the trial itself is now the proper crucible, and laches weighs in the discretionary balance.