Section 482 of Crpc is all about Saving of inherent power of High Court. This section makes it clear that the provisions of the Code are not intended to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Courts. Obviously the inherent power can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section.
What section 482 of criminal procedure code says ?
Section 482-Saving of inherent power of High Court.-Nothing in this ode shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
Detail Explanation of the Section 482
This inherent power cannot naturally be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code. It cannot also be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code. It is only if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provision of the Code that Section 482 can come into operation, subject further to the requirement that the exercise of such power must serve either of the three purposes mentioned in the said section.
It would be noticed that it is only the High Court whose inherent power has been recognised by Section 482, and even in regard to the High Court’s inherent power definite salutary safeguards have been laid down as to its exercise.
It is only where the High Court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of crpc. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction It has been held that Section 482 of crpc cannot be invoked in non-criminal proceedings such as those under the Customs Act.
The inherent power contemplated by “Section 482” has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
Supreme Court inherent power of High Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated the nature of this power thus:
The following cases (summarized) have been stated by the Supreme Court,99 by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of crpc can be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure justice.
Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court
- Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not primafacie constitute any offence against the accused.
- Where the allegations in the FIR or other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purviewof Section 155(2).
- Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence.
- Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without th order of Magistrate under Section 155(2).
- Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
- Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which ‘the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
- Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance.
The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions:
- That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
- That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
- That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
In most of the cases decided during several decades the inherent power of the High Court has been invoked for the quashing of a criminal proceeding on one ground or the other.
Crpc Section 482 case laws
In State of U.P v Mohd Naim -The High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court in respect of any conduct of a person or official if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
In considering the expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities the High Court will take into account:
- whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself;
- whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and
- whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that an order made in the absence of a party without hearing him, when such order has been passed on merits and adversely affecting his rights could be recalled in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. However the question in each case would be as to whether such a principle applies to the facts of a given case or not.
The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 482 of crpc could be invoked to award cost. Its observations are instructive:
“In the result we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of crpc, court has power to pass “such orders” (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases
- to give effect to any order passed under the Code or
- to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
- otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As stated above this extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a judicious manner. Cost may be to meet the litigation expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes”
Inherent power of High Court – Few more Points
It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage.
Grounds for Quashing of FIR by High Court
It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings.
There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground.
- Article 29 of Indian Constitution with Explanation and Notes
- Article 28 of Indian Constitution with Explanation
- Article 26 of Indian Constitution With Explanation
WE ALSO PROVIDE
BIBLIOGRAPHY- R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE