Blog Details

Introduction:

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973: Saving inherent powers of High Court: Nothing in this Code shall be construed as limiting or affecting the inherent authority of the High Court to issue any orders that may be required to carry out any orders made pursuant to this Code, to prevent abuse of any Court's process, or to further the interests of justice.

Only the courts have the right to make use of these powers in order to provide full and satisfactory justice to the parties in front of them, and prevent misuse of the legal system. This is done with an inherent capacity to uphold justice, right wrongs, and prevent abuse of the legal system. It is important to note that these powers should only be employed in limited circumstances. 

However, it is argued here that this clause includes three possible scenarios when such inherent powers may be used:   to avoid misuse of the court's procedure, to fulfil the purposes of justice, and to put into effect a CrPC order.

Power under Section Section 482 :

It gives the High Court powers to quash an FIR or a complaint if the court is satisfied with well-established parameters laid out in the previous decisions, such as R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab[3] (“R.P. Kapur”) which includes the following: 

1.     If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint do not make out any case against the accused, even if taken at face value, they do not constitute an offence.

2.     If the allegations made in an FIR do not qualify as cognisable offences, which are serious enough to warrant police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC.

3.     If all the allegations made in the FIR and all the evidence collected in support of them do not establish a case against an accused, then there can be no case.

Need for the Section?

The powers of the High Court under Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were partly administrative and partly judicial. The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923, which gave the High Courts jurisdiction to render complete justice in cases where illegality was patent and apparent. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Muniswami AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Supreme Court held that the inherent jurisdiction envisages three circumstances in which it can be exercised, namely "to give effect to an order under CrPC", "to prevent abuse of the process of the court" and "to secure the ends of justice”.

The High Court has an inherent power to hear cases with respect to judicial orders and for securing justice. This power is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it—a power that may not be exercised without a party's clean hands.

Whether the High Court can interfere at an interlocutory stage?

High Courts are often reluctant to interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceedings in subordinate courts, but if a person's right to life or liberty is being threatened by an illegal prosecution, the Court has a duty to intervene. Also under extraordinary exceptional circumstances, the court may interfere at an interlocutory stage. When the impugned interlocutory order clearly abuse the process of the court, then for the purpose of ensuring that justice is served, interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary. Nothing in Section 397 (2) can limit or affect this power.

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is very broad, however it must be exercised only when it is justified by the tests in the section itself. It should be used for purposes of real and substantial justice and for this reason alone, courts exist 

Conclusion

This article explores how the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash criminal proceedings that are found to be ex-facie bad for the lack of sanction, frivolous, or in violation of court procedure. However, it is important to note the adverse effects of this power so that we can draw a conclusion.

In recent days, it has been discovered that an increasing number of criminal cases have been scheduled for Special Leave petitions before the Supreme Court—a move that is permitted by vacating the contested order sheet. In making decisions regarding cases covered by section 482 of the CrPC, Mini-trials are often how the High Court chooses to proceed.

In the landmark judgement of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Cri. Appeal No. 787 OF 2021)—the Supreme Court observed that no permission should be granted for any evaluation of evidence at the very beginning of proceedings when using section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is important to use the inherent authority granted to the High Court by the Indian Constitution carefully and to ensure that it is solely used to further justice and stop the abuse of court procedures. 

References:

1. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/697362/overview-of-section-482-crpc-vis-vis-the-landmark-judgments-of-the-supreme-court-of-india

2.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-s-482-crpc-hc-recall-judgments-prejudically-affected-205243

3.https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-482-of-criminal-procedure-code-for-quashing-criminal-proceedings-which-are-ex-facie-bad-for-want-of-sanction-frivolous-or-in-abuse-of-process-of-court/

4.https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/05/supreme-court-on-section-482-crpc-have-the-inherent-powers-of-high-courts-been-diluted/