Section 482 CrPC- Inherent Powers of High Court when to be exercised !

Section 482 CrPC –Inherent Powers of High Court when to be exercised !

Section 482 CrPC reads as under:-

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Meaning of Section 482 CrPC

The powers of the High Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative and partly judicial. Section 482 was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923, as the High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable and apparent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswami– AIR 1977 SC 1489, held that the section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may 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 section is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. It is well settled that Section 482 Cr.PC can be invoked when there is no other remedy available to the party and not where there is specific remedy provided by the statute.

Section 482 and quashing of criminal proceedings

According to Black’s law dictionary  quash means to overthrow / to abate / to vacate / to annul / to make void. In simplest terms, quashing or abatement of criminal proceedings would mean ceasing the legal machinery which had been set in motion. This is usually done after a First Information Report is filed, before the chargesheet-filing stage.

Why there is need of Section 482

The purpose behind the enactment of Section 482  is that the framers of the Code could not have provided or forethought all the cases and circumstances that should be included within the meaning of abuse of process of court. It is for the court to take decision in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

“To prevent the abuse of process of any Court”

 Under this clause High Court can interfere even at the interlocutory stage of the criminal proceedings when there is clear cut case of harassment of citizens. It may also invoke its inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances.

“To secure the ends of Justice”

It is essential for the free and impartial administration of justice in a country that independence and freeness of the judges should be maintained and ensured but it is also essential that judges while administering justice should be guided by a reasonable level of fair play and justice. It is in these type of cases when there is flagrant violation of any statutory provision or when FIR has been lodged against the person is false one with malicious intention to harass the aggrieved person, the High is well within his rights to quash such an FIR.

The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court:

1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party.
2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.

Landmark judgment of Bhajan Lal V/s State of Haryana regarding quashing of criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC

In the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India examined in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying 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.

Recent Judgment of Supreme Court of India on Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC,1973.

The Honourable Supreme Court of India has now very well settled a position of law regarding dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPc or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v/s State of Maharashtra decided on April 13, 2021. The Apex Court clarified that when the investigation is in progress and the facts of the case  are not clear and the entire material/evidence is not before the High Court then High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim Order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted”. The Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified that in such cases the accused should be consigned to apply to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Crpc.The Hon’ble Apex Court in this case has clarified the position of law regarding the situations and circumstances in which the High Court would be justified in passing the interim orders of either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of “no coercive steps” or not to arrest the accused during pendency of investigation by the Police in the shape of following guidelines:-

1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognisable offence;
2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognisable offences;
3. It is only in cases where no cognisable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
5. 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;
6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than ordinary rule;
8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to whims or caprice;

12. The First information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
13. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide powers requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this court in the cases of R.P.Kapur and Bhajan Lal has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
15. 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.PC., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognisable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognisable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, 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. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) 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. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, 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.

17. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, 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.

This is a Landmark and latest Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on Section 482 CrPC,1973 titled as Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Maharashtra decided on April 13,2021.