A prospective servant-verification order cannot criminalize pre-existing engagements under Section 223(a) BNS.

On 8 November 2025, the ACP, Sub-Division Badarpur, issued an order under Section 163 of the BNSS requiring landlords, owners, and persons in charge of properties to furnish particulars of tenants and servants to the concerned police station. The order was to operate from 9 November 2025 to 7 January 2026.

On 13 November 2025, during servant-verification proceedings at the petitioner’s premises, Ravi Kumar was found working as a security guard. He stated that he had been working there for approximately five years and had submitted his verification documents to the petitioner, Alok Prakash Srivastava, but verification had not been completed.

The police registered FIR No. 585/2025 under Section 223(a) of the BNS for alleged violation of the ACP’s order. After investigation, a chargesheet and a written complaint under Section 215 of the BNSS were filed; the Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons on 7 January 2026.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged failure to obtain servant verification constituted disobedience of the ACP’s order dated 8 November 2025 when the security guard’s engagement had commenced approximately five years earlier?

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Section 223(a) of the BNS were liable to be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied Section 223(a) of the BNS, which was invoked for alleged disobedience of the ACP’s prohibitory order, and examined the terms and temporal operation of the order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the principles permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence, or where the uncontroverted allegations and collected material do not disclose commission of an offence.

The Court also considered Chander Bhushan v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4879, concerning the prospective application of such verification orders.

The prosecution’s case rested entirely on the ACP’s order dated 8 November 2025.

That order became operative only on 9 November 2025 and remained in force for 60 days; it was therefore prospective and could not be expansively interpreted to govern an existing servant engagement that pre-dated its commencement.

The FIR itself recorded that Ravi Kumar had been working at the premises for approximately five years, well before the order was issued.

Consequently, the petitioner’s alleged omission to complete verification on 13 November 2025 could not amount to disobedience of an order that did not retrospectively impose obligations in respect of an already-existing engagement.

Since the FIR, chargesheet, and status report disclosed no independent basis for the alleged offence beyond the inapplicable order, the allegations did not establish an offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS and attracted the principles governing quashing under Bhajan Lal.

Accordingly, FIR No. 585/2025 dated 13 November 2025 registered at Police Station Badarpur, together with all proceedings emanating from it, was quashed.

The petition and pending application were allowed and disposed of.