INHERENT POWER OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

      Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as follows:

Saving of Inherent powers of High Court

Nothing in this code 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 the code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The Inherent powers of the court were introduced as Section 482 by an amendment in the year 1923 even though the Courts possessed the power way before the Act came into existence. It is basically a reproduction of section 561 (A) of the 1898 Code. The Inherent powers of the code engraft an essential supremacy of the High Court to use the powers vested upon it :

• ·        To give effect to any order under the Code
• ·        To prevent the abuse of process of any Court
• ·        To secure the ends of justice.

This power has been conferred exclusively upon the High Court in the Code of Criminal procedure as no other court can exercise such an exclusive power. Hence, the Inherent power needs to be very sparingly used with adept judicial reasoning and only under exceptional circumstances to prevent the miscarriage of justice and also prevent the abuse of law. The inherent power of the High Court has no limit but this needs to be exercised very cautiously ,judicially and never arbitrarily to meet the whims and caprice of fake litigants.

To dwell deeper it is essential to quote certain case laws which help in establishing the core essence of this section.

In  Ram Chand v/s State of Bihar 1977 Cri LJ 466 (Pat) it was held that the inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked to override an express provision of law or when there is already remedy available under the Code.

In Madhu Limaye v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 the Supreme Court mentioned certain guiding principle in exercising this power.

“At the outset the following principles it may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally almost invariably having few exceptions

• ·        The power is not resorted to if there is a specific provision in the code for redress of grievance of the aggrieved party
• ·        That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court 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.”

         It was in the same case where the Supreme Court resolved the most haunted question whether the High Court has the power to exercise its inherent power in the revision of interlocutory order under section 397(2).Section 397(2) states that the power of revision shall not be exercised to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the bar created by section 397(2) of the code of criminal procedure shall not prevent the High Court from exercising its inherent powers for stopping the criminal proceedings as early as possible instead of harassing the accused up to the end.

The Supreme Court in CBI v/s Ravishankar Shrivastava AIR 2006 SC 2872(2875) has laid down exemplary circumstances wherein the high Court could prevent the miscarriage of justice. This power must be used by the Court sparingly and in the rarest of the rarest cases.

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Similarly,in Rajiv Thapar v/s Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SSC 330 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down stepwise enquiry for High Court to follow in exercise of the power of quashment U/S 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“We would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in a abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [Para 23]

               It must be concluded from the above leading case laws that Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure does not vest any new power to the High Court but saves the existing power that it has been conferred with before the enactment of this code. This power is exclusively vested and judicially exercised by the High Court under and needs to be used in exceptional cases under exceptional circumstances only.

Contributed By,

Maitreyi Raghuraman