Meanings and Usage of 'Quash' and 'Quashing' in a Legal Context

Quash: Meanings

Top of Page  
"Quash" is a verb. Its meanings in legal / judicial contexts are—

1) to annul; to set aside; to make void (i.e. to void); to overthrow; to abate; to invalidate; to terminate; to cancel; to reject; to nullify by judicial action; to abolish–
a law, an action, an indictment, a decision, evidence, a subpoena (in American law), a writ, a ruling, a conviction, an order, a procedure, service of a summons, etc. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

2) to declare that something (a previous law, order, procedure, decision, official decision, indictment, writ) is–
i) no longer to be accepted;
ii) no longer to be deemed correct;
iii) no longer legally acceptable;
iv) no longer valid. ^{[7] [8] [9]}

3) to suppress or extinguish summarily and completely. ^[10]

Usage: Examples of contexts in which the word "quash" can be used in Indian Law

Top of Page  
1) In the context of voiding of a summons–
The word "quash" can be used in situations in which summonses issued by a criminal court are voided by a high court. One example which comes to mind is the case titled Mallika Sherawat alias Reema Lamba vs. State of Maharashtra ^{[11] [12]}.

One socially minded person decided to file a criminal complaint against Mallika Sherawat for alleged obscenity. Mallika filed a plea for revision in response to a summons issued by the concerned judicial magistrate. Justice Arun Bhaurao Chaudhari of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed the said summons –advising the original complainant to sue the Central Board of Film Certification instead of Mallika Sherawat.

2) In the context of rejection of a chargesheet– Top of Page  
A chargesheet can be struck down qua an accused person if it is found to have been faulty qua him / her. The word "quash" is appropriate to describe such a route of case closure.

Such a situation came to pass in a Bombay High Court case which was a part of the Adarsh Society Scam. The title of the said case is Mandar Mahesh Goswami vs. Inspector of Police. ^{[13] [14] [15]}

Interestingly a later chargesheet against two other accused persons ^{[16] [17] [18] [19]} in the same case as Mandar Goswami, namely in the Adarsh Society Scam, was also set aside by Bombay High Court eight years later. This was also a "quash". Forget about the judgement, even the title of this case cannot be found on the internet, including on the website of the Bombay High Court. The two fortunate men were Kailash Gidwani and Jawahar Jagiasi. Jagiasi was also a lawyer for the CBI, like Mandar Goswami before him.

3) In the context of quashing by a high court of a criminal dispute between a wife and her husband after dissolution of their marriage– Top of Page  
"Quash" is the correct word to describe quashing (after dissolution of a marriage) of any criminal matter which may have been filed by a wife against her husband (or her husband and his family). Such quashing is done by a high court upon presentation (after the said divorce) of a petition for quashing under Section 528 BNSS or Section 482 CrPC.

It may be noted that there is no requirement for presentation of a petition for quashing in situations wherein no FIR based upon any spousal allegations has been registered. This is because nobody can quash that which does not exist.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja of Delhi High Court quashed an FIR on the 30th of May 2025 following a divorce settlement between the concerned parties in Hari Kishan vs State of NCT of Delhi & Another ^[20]. Divorce by mutual consent was granted by Family Court, Saket, Delhi on the 20th of September 2024, following which the husband applied U/s 528 BNSS for quashing of the said FIR.

Gaurav Vipin Singhal & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Another ^[21] is similar to Hari Kishan (supra). A division bench of the Bombay High Court used its powers as described in Section 482 CrPC in this writ petition. Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Dr. Neela Gokhale quashed a criminal case (being Regular Criminal Case No. 258 of 2015, pending before a judicial magistrate in Khadki, Pune) along with the FIR (No. 3 of 2014 registered with Bhosari Police Station, Pune) from which it has arisen. The petition for quashing of the said FIR was filed by Mr. Singhal sometime after a family court in Pune had passed a decree of divorce.

4) In the context of quashing of a non-marital criminal matter by a high court after a compromise between complainant and accused– Top of Page  
Criminal proceedings were initiated against two accused persons in Arunachal Pradesh on the basis of an FIR filed under IPC Sections 332 (viz. voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant while they are on duty) and 34. Proceedings qua one of the accused persons in the said case were quashed by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana at the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court in Sawan Yangfo & Another vs State of Arunachal Pradesh ^[22] after the said accused person and the complainant arrived at a settlement and agreed to jointly apply for quashing of proceedings.

Rinchen Tamang & Others vs. State Of Sikkim ^{[23] [24] [25]} was a considerably more serious criminal case. A mob consisting of an indeterminate number of people –all of whom had been carrying stones and broken bottles– had attacked 5 unarmed persons late at night at a lonely spot. 9 offenders had been identified by the victims in their criminal complaint. The sections of the IPC under which the FIR had been registered by the police were Section 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), Section 147 (punishment for rioting), Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), Section 324 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and Section 326 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means).

Charges had been framed against seven out of the nine accused persons and a trial was in progress when the complainants and the accused persons signed a deed of compromise and approached the high court for quashing of the said FIR and of criminal proceedings emanating therefrom. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan of Sikkim High Court used his powers under Section 482 CrPC and granted the request for quashing. He based his decision on the factum of a compromise having been reached by the parties.

5) In the context of quashing of non-marital criminal cases by a high court when the element of compromise between complainant and accused is missing– Top of Page  
"Quash" can be used to describe quashing of a criminal complaint (and any associated proceedings) by a high court after examining a petition under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS.

The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed by Saluumarada Thimakka –the "tree woman" of Ramanagara District– in Karnataka, upon consideration of a petition U/s 482 CrPC filed by Vasu Primlani ^{[26] [27] [28]}, who was the sole accused. There was no compromise between accuser and accused, and the grounds for quashing were that allegations made in the criminal complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety did not constitute any offence. The title of the case was Ritu Primlani Alias Vasu Primlani Vs State Of Karnataka.

Jitha Sanjay and Others vs State of Kerala ^[29] is another such case. Justice Abdul Rahim Musaliar Badharudeen of Kerala High Court quashed a criminal complaint and the FIR resultant therefrom after hearing a petition under CrPC Section 482. The complainants and accused persons did not reach any compromise in the said case. It was quashed because it was found to be vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive, being that of wreaking vengeance due to a personal grudge.

6) In the context of quashing of all connected civil and criminal disputes by the supreme court at the point of dissolution of a marriage (regardless of any compromise having been reached or not reached between the parties)– Top of Page  
"Quash / quashing" can also be used to describe nullification of all concomitant criminal and civil matters by the supreme court upon dissolution of a marriage. Usually this is done if and when spouses reach mutual consent, though –at the level of the supreme court– presence or absence of mutual consent is totally immaterial for both dissolution of a marriage as well as quashing of connected cases. A petition under Section 528 BNSS or Section 482 CrPC is –quite like mutual consent– not a pre-requisite in such situations.

A marriage was dissolved and a suit for divorce and four connected matters pending in various courts in Madhya Pradesh were quashed simultaneously by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Limbad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh ^[30]. The appellant in this case had earlier petitioned the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court for quashing of a criminal matter filed against him and his son by the latter's wife. While Mr. Limbad's petition under Section 528 of the BNSS in MP High Court ^{[31] [32]} and the subsequent appeal were filed in an adversarial spirit, the supreme court mediation centre managed to bring about a compromise between his son Brijraj Limbad and Brijraj's wife Ashlesha Limbad. The result was a mass quashing.

There was no element of mutual consent of spouses and no settlement between them in Rekha Minocha Vs Amit Shah Minocha & Others ^{[33] [34] [35] [36]}, but a division bench of the supreme court did not blink while dissolving their marriage and simultaneously quashing all civil and criminal cases pending between the two.

7) In the context of quashing of a civil dispute dressed up as a criminal wrong– Top of Page  
Kusum Kanoria vs State Of West Bengal & Another ^{[37] [38]} was quashed by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta of Calcutta High Court because of being essentially a civil dispute to which a criminal colour was being sought to be given.

Amit Dey & Another vs State of West Bengal & Another ^{[39] [40]} was similarly quashed by the Calcutta High Court because of being a civil case in criminal garb. The judge who passed the judgement is Justice Shampa Dutt Paul.

8) In the context of overturning of a lower court's judgement by a superior court– Top of Page  
"Quashing" can also refer to overruling by a superior court of grant or non-grant of any relief by a lower court. Balbir singh was acquitted by the supreme court in the Indira Gandhi Murder Case. It quashed his conviction by Delhi High Court in doing so. The case was titled Kehar Singh & others vs Delhi Administration ^{[41] [42]}.

Justices Achhru Ram, G.D. Khosla and A.N. Bhandari of the East Punjab High Court acquitted Shankar Kistaiya and Dattatraya Parchure in Nathuram Vinayak Godse & Others vs Rex (or The Crown) (A.I.R. 1949 East Punjab 321, 51 Punj. L.R. 306). They quashed their convictions by Judge Atma Charan, who presided at the special trial court which was located at the Red Fort. You can read the trial court judgement Rex (or The Crown) vs Nathuram Vinayak Godse & Others here ^{[43] [44]}, and a book called The Murder of the Mahatma here ^{[45] [46] [47]}. The said book was written by Justice Gopal Das Khosla, (G.D. Khosla (supra)).

9) In the context of cancellation of an executive order by a judicial authority– Top of Page  
The Calcutta High Court quashed deportation orders of 6 Indian citizens to Bangladesh in a pair of habeas corpus petitions titled Amir Khan vs Union of India & Others ^{[48] [49]} and Bhodu Sekh vs Union of India & Others ^{[50] [51] [52]} respectively, on the 26th of September 2025.