How states can withdraw FIRs against students booked during CJP protests

However, the criminal procedure terminology does not provide for “withdrawal” of an FIR. Depending on the stage the case is at, the police can submit a closure report, the prosecution can ask a court to permit withdrawal from prosecution, or proceedings can eventually be quashed by the court.

What is a First Information Report? 

A First Information Report (FIR) is the first written record of an offence that is received by the police. Its registration sets a criminal investigation in motion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

There is no legal provision for a government to cancel or revoke that record using an executive order. What can be brought to an end is the case that follows from the FIR. This can happen through three routes.

Route One: Closure report

If an investigation does not disclose sufficient material to proceed against the accused, the police may file a closure report before the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 193 of BNSS.

The magistrate, however, is not bound by the police’s report. In Abhinandan Jha v Dinesh Mishra (1967), the Supreme Court held that a magistrate can disagree with the investigating agency and, depending on the material before the court, take cognisance of the offence or direct further investigation.

The Court noted the magistrate’s supervisory role in Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Ors v State of Karnataka (2026). In that case, the police filed closure reports twice before undertaking another investigation, without first obtaining the magistrate’s permission. The Supreme Court held that obtaining such leave “has evolved into a requirement,” even though the statute does not expressly provide for it, and found that “criminal action against the appellants would be contrary to the authority of law and therefore an abuse of process of law for the reason that the third round of further investigation as a consequence of which the chargesheet was filed, did not have the concerned Magistrate’s approval.”

A government decision mandating the withdrawal of a case therefore does not, by itself, close an investigation. Where the police seek closure, the report still goes before the magistrate.

Route Two: Withdrawal from prosecution

Section 360 of the BNSS states that “the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried.”

Two conditions govern this provision. The first is that the application must reflect the public prosecutor’s independent view of the case, not merely a government directive. Second, even an application by the prosecutor does not end the case. Section 360 requires the court’s consent. In Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar (1986), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the court must examine whether withdrawal is sought in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.

The law also requires the victim to be given the opportunity to be heard before the court allows withdrawal.

Route Three: Court quashes the FIR

The third route lies within the High Court’s own inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the court’s authority to pass orders “to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

A person facing prosecution can approach the High Court directly. Courts have cautioned that this power should be used sparingly, particularly when investigation is still underway.

Previous cases

In 1980, the Supreme Court dealt with the withdrawal of prosecution in the Baroda Dynamite case against George Fernandes and others following the Emergency. The court allowed the withdrawal to stand and recognised that lack of evidence is not the only ground on which a prosecution may be withdrawn. Public interest may also justify ending prosecutions arising from periods of unrest.

The Supreme Court also referred to prosecutions arising from “mass agitations, communal riots, regional disputes, industrial conflicts, student unrest” as situations where withdrawal may be considered to restore peace or preserve a settlement.

It said that “An elected Government, sensitive and responsive to the feelings and emotions of the people, will be amply justified if for the purpose of creating an atmosphere of goodwill or for the purpose of not disturbing a calm which has descended it decides not to prosecute the offenders involved or not to proceed further with prosecutions already launched.”

But in 2021, in State of Kerala v K Ajith, the government sought to withdraw prosecution against a group of MLAs, who by then had become ministers, over damage caused inside the legislative assembly in 2015. The Supreme Court refused: “No member of an elected legislature can claim either a privilege or an immunity to stand above the sanctions of the criminal law, which applies equally to all citizens.” It also said that a court’s consent to withdraw is not automatic and must be based on examination of reasons placed before it.