Law on exercise of Inherent Powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr P C #indianlaws

The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and carefully in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2011, decided on 29.07.2011), reported as MANU/SC/0884/2011 = [2011]9SCR623 while dealing with issue as to whether High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondent by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) and in the process discussed the law relating to the provision supported to various precedents.

It was observed that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail in the landmark case of Bhajan Lal (discussed later).

The inherent power, as held, should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons.

Section 482 of the Code provides for inherent power of High Court. The section added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923 envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:

1.    To give effect to any order under Code of Criminal Procedure;
2.    To prevent abuse of the process of any court; and 
3.    To secure the ends of justice.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (MANU/SC/0086/1960 = (1960) 3 SCR 388) the Supreme Court laid down following principles:

(i)    Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii)    Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;
(iii)    Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv)    Where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

Supreme Court again as held in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (AIR 1977 SC 1489), this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, 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. 

High Court’s inherent power scope though being very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. The provision is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. 

These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under this provision being discretionary, the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands. High Court in such proceedings is not to enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below. 

Inherent powers under Section 482 include Powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.

It must be remembered that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute, meaning that inherent power is to be exercised to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone Courts exist. 

In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (MANU/SC/0261/1988 = AIR 1988 SC 709) the Supreme Court had held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroversial allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. Further where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider “special facts”, “special features” and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.

However the finding arrived at in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia case later was held in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma and Anr. (MANU/SC/0542/1992 = AIR 1991 SC 1260) to be as not laying down a law of universal application. The Court cannot examine the facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in conviction. It was held that the ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia case is applicable in cases where the Court finds that the dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in nature and that the parties should be given a chance to reach a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes etc. The superior Courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of court where the court finds that the ends of justice may be met by quashing the proceedings it may quash the proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the law. It is not necessary for the court to hold a full fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (MANU/SC/1090/1998 = [1997]Supp5SCR13) had clarified that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226.

Supreme Court in the famous or rather authority case namely State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (MANU/SC/0115/1992 = [1990] Supp 3 SCR 259) on the provision summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

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 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 concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, 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.

In the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. (MANU/SC/3152/2006= (2006) 6 SCC 736) Supreme Court laid down the following principles:

1.    The High courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
2.    The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.
3.    It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.

In the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Arun Gulab Gawali and Ors. (MANU/SC/0647/2010 = [2010] 10 SCR 683), the Supreme Court had held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R./Complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can ‘soft-pedal the course of justice’ at a crucial stage of investigation/ proceedings. It was further held that the provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it.

To conclude what transpires from the above is that the power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and carefully in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.