Court's Inherent Powers Not Boundless, Expressions Such As 'Abuse Of Process' Or 'Securing Ends Of Justice' Don't Grant Unlimited Jurisdiction: J&K High Court

Emphasising that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are not boundless the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that expressions such as “abuse of process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not grant the High Court unlimited jurisdiction.Spotlighting the mandate of these inherent power Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated, “.. the High court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC cannot take detailed examination of the facts contained in FIR by acting as an appellate court and draw its own conclusion”. Justice Wani made these observations in a case originated from a property dispute between Mohammad Akram Rather, the petitioner, and his step-sister Ruby Jan, the respondent. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of ancestral land, which was also partially purchased. Despite an earlier demarcation and amicable settlements, tensions escalated when Ruby Jan and her relatives allegedly trespassed and damaged the petitioner's property, leading to a physical altercation. Both parties subsequently filed FIRs against each other, with the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR registered against him under Sections 341, 354, 323, and 506 of the IPC.The petitioners argued that the FIR against them was a fabrication, influenced by the respondent's sway over the local police, aimed at harassing them unjustly. They emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should be invoked to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of the legal process. On the other hand, the official respondents contended that the FIR was based on a legitimate complaint by Ruby Jan, who alleged that the petitioners had forcibly entered her residence, assaulted her mother-in-law, and outraged her modesty.Justice Wani referred to several precedents to outline the limited scope of the High Court's powers under Section 482 CrPC. He cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, which underscores that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent misuse of the judicial process.The Court also discussed the parameters set by the Supreme Court for quashing an FIR, such as when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, or when the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. Justice Wani also referenced the celebrated case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which identified specific situations where the High Court can intervene.In the instant case the court noted that a prima-facie case has been come to exist and found established disclosing the ingredients of offences alleged to been committed by the accused petitioners herein as such, under these circumstances. In light of these observations Justice Wani concluded that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised with great caution and and hence the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed. Case Title: Mohammad Akram Rather and Ors Vs UT through Director General of Police and Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 210Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Court's Inherent Powers Not Boundless, Expressions Such As 'Abuse Of Process' Or 'Securing Ends Of Justice' Don't Grant Unlimited Jurisdiction: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Court's Inherent Powers Not Boundless, Expressions Such As 'Abuse Of Process' Or 'Securing Ends Of Justice' Don't Grant Unlimited Jurisdiction: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers