- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Recent Important Judgments On The...
Recent Important Judgments On The Inherent Powers Of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC
Muneeb Rashid Malik
4 May 2023 3:48 AM GMT
“In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve...
“In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Former Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court and various High Courts of the country have recently pronounced numerous judgments on Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court). In this write-up, the important pronouncements are briefly discussed.
THE COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE MINI TRIAL AT THE STAGE OF DISCHARGE AND / OR QUASHING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHILE EXERCISING THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. ARYAN SINGH ETC, 2023 LIVELAW (SC) 292.
The Supreme Court held that at the stage of discharge and / or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is / are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. It was held that at the stage of discharge and / or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.
IF A DISPUTE OF A CIVIL NATURE IS GIVEN A CLOAK OF CRIMINAL OFFENCE, THE HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT.
USHA CHAKRABORTY & ANR. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR., 2023 LIVELAW (SC) 67.
The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law. The Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein it was held that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of the facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.
UNEXPLAINED INORDINATE DELAY MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS A VERY CRUCIAL FACTOR AS GROUND FOR QUASHING A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.
HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR. V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 1033.
The Supreme Court held that for the quashing of a criminal complaint, the Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It was held that while inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC but unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as ground for quashing a criminal complaint. While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice. The law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law.
THE HIGH COURT HAS TO BE CONSCIOUS THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC IS TO BE EXERCISED SPARINGLY AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT OR OTHERWISE TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
R. NAGENDER YADAV V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR., 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 1030.
The Supreme Court held that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court.
THE POWER UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC COULD BE EXERCISED 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.
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA V. STATE OF U.P. & ORS., 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 993.
The Supreme Court, while referring to the judgment in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335, held that the power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised 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. 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, the power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised.
IF A PETITIONER FAILS TO ADDRESS CONVINCINGLY THE REASONS FOR LATCHES AND INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING A PETITION, THE COURT WOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR. P. C.
SUSHILABAI W/O VAIJINATH PAWAR V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., 2022 LIVELAW (BOM) 385.
The Bombay High Court held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed within which a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C ought to be filed yet, if a petitioner fails to address convincingly the reasons for latches and inordinate delay, the Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. and as such a petition should be filed within a reasonable time. The Court referred to the judgment in Vipin Kumar Gupta v. Sarvesh Mahajan, Manu/De/0418/2019 and observed that if a Court fails to take into consideration, delay and latches while invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation. The Court also observed that a party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C at its whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under Section 482 CrPC is provided. A petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Within what time a petitioner should approach the Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
THE INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC COULD BE EXERCISED TO DIRECT FURTHER INVESTIGATION OR EVEN REINVESTIGATION.
DEVENDRA NATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS., 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 835.
The Supreme Court held that even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a case where a charge-sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and is to be exercised subject to the limitations of Section 173(8) CrPC, in an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. The Court held that the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice. Even when the wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC are recognized for ordering further investigation or reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in exceptional cases. The powers under Section 482 CrPC are not unlimited or untrammeled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted.
THE COURT HAS TO GO SLOW WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC ON THE BASIS OF A SETTLEMENT WHEN THE OFFENCES ARE CAPABLE OF HAVING AN IMPACT NOT MERELY ON THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSED BUT ALSO ON OTHERS.
P. DHARAMARAJ V. SHANMUGAM & ORS., 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 749.
The Supreme Court held that the Court has to go slow while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others. The Court referred to the judgment in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors., v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and held that in the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor.
A HIGH COURT WHILE EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC, CAN GRANT STAY OF INVESTIGATION OR ANY OTHER INTERIM RELIEF ONLY IN THE RAREST OF RARE CASES.
SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI V. STATE OF GUJARAT, 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 653.
The Supreme Court held that a High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, can grant stay of investigation or any other interim relief only in the rarest of rare cases. The Court set aside orders passed by the Gujarat High Court while considering petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court has not properly appreciated the principles and the law laid down by it in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 1918.
THE HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING/DISPOSING OF THE QUASHING PETITIONS UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C SHALL NOT PASS ORDER OF NOT TO ARREST AND/OR "NO COERCIVE STEPS."
M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., 2021 LIVELAW (SC) 211.
The Supreme Court held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR / complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR / complaint. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. The Court also held that an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted,” the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.
A HIGH COURT HAS INHERENT POWER UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC TO RECALL A JUDGMENT/ORDER WHICH WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARING A PERSON PREJUDICIALLY AFFECTED BY IT.
DAXABEN VS STATE OF GUJARAT, 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 642.
The Supreme Court held that a High Court has inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to recall a judgment/order which was passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by it. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings. However, interference would only be justified when the complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.
A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT HAS TO BE QUASHED IF NO OFFENCE IS MADE OUT BY A CAREFUL READING OF THE COMPLAINT.
WYETH LIMITED & ORS. V. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR., 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 721.
The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint has to be quashed if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint. The Court also held that in the present case, a careful reading of the complaint, would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the appellants. Therefore, the order of the High Court was set aside and the FIR and the charge-sheet against the appellants were quashed.
(Muneeb Rashid Malik is an Advocate and can be reached at muneebrashidmalik@gmail.com. He tweets @muneebmalikrash).
