Recent Important Judgments On The Inherent Powers Of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC

“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.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/high-court-cannot-quash-criminal-proceedings-at-section-482-crpc-stage-by-saying-charges-arent-proved-supreme-court-226075CENTRAL 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.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sec-482-crpc-pendency-of-suit-concealed-cloak-of-criminal-offence-given-to-civil-dispute-supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-220279USHA 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.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-criminal-complaint-unexplained-inordinate-delay-hasmukhlal-d-vora-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-2022-livelaw-sc-1033-216973HASMUKHLAL 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...

Recent Important Judgments On The Inherent Powers Of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC

Muneeb Rashid Malik

Tags