Inherent Powers of High Courts(quashing of Fir)

				the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding
				of facts of two courts below.
INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURTS (Quashing
of F.I.R)				When the high court quashed a criminal complaint on
				consideration of certain documents produced by the
				petitioner , it was held by the supreme court that
				the order of the high court was illegal, as only when
INTRODUCTION:				the high court comes to a conclusion that no prima
				facie case is made out , based on the complaint and
Inherent powers of the High Courts are the powers				the documents accompanying it, that the court could
which are not additional to the powers conferred				quash the complaint.
upon the High Courts. The most important aspect of
such power is the Quashing of FIR by the court .

Section 482 CrPC talks about the inherent powers of				VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT:
the high courts. This section reproduces section
561-A of the code of 1898 without any change. It
does not confer any new powers on the high courts				The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the High
but saves such inherent powers which the court				Courts can quash an FIR against a person if it did not
possessed before the enactment of CrPC.				prima facie disclose any offence.

Though the jurisdiction exists and is wide in its scope				A two judge bench said that ordinarily criminal
it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in				proceedings instituted against an accused must be
exceptional cases. The section was added by the				tried and taken to logical conclusions under the
Code of Criminal Procedure(amendment) Act,1923 ,				Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the High Courts
as the high courts were unable to render complete				should be reluctant to interfere into the proceedings
justice even if in a given case the illegality was				at an interlocutory stage.
palpable and apparent. The section is a sort of				"However, if upon the admitted facts and the
reminder to the high courts that they are not merely				documents relied upon by the complainant or the
courts n law, but also courts of justice and possess				prosecution and without weighing or sifting evidence,
inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent				no case is made out, the criminal proceedings
power in the high is an inalienable attribute of the				instituted against the accused are required to be
position it holds with respect to the courts				dropped or quashed", the bench said. Where the
subordinate to it. These powers are partly				allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the
administrative and partly judicial . They are				accompanying documents taken at their face value,
necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with				do not constitute the offence alleged, the person
respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends				proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation
of justice. The expression ‘ends of justice’				has to be saved, ruled the bench.
is not used to comprise within it any vague or
nebulous concept of justice, nor even justice in
philosophical sense , but justice according to law,				In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (
statute law and the common law. Inherent powers				1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) :
are in the nature of etxtraordinary powers available
only where no express power is available to the				A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India
high courts to do a particular thing , and where the				considered in detail the provisions of section 482 and
express power does not negativate the existence of				the power of the high court to quash criminal
such inherent power. The jurisdiction under section				proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized
482 is discretionary , the high court may refuse to				the legal position by laying the following guidelines to
exercise the discretion if a party has not approached				be followed by high courts in exercise of their
it with clean hands.				inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

				1. The criminal complaint can be quashed when
				allegations made in the complaint, even if they are
OBJECTIVE:				taken at their face value and accepted in their
				entirety, prima facie constitute any offence or make
				out a case against the accused person.
To highlight the use of inherent powers by the high				2. The criminal complaint can be quashed when
courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure				allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and
especially for quashing of FIR or criminal complaints				inherently improbable that on the basis of which no
before the filing of a chargesheet.				prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that
				there are sufficient grounds for continuing the
				proceedings against the accused person.
SCOPE :
				3. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the
The scope of the report is limited only to the				allegations made in thecomplaint and evidence
quashing of FIR and highlighting some judgements				collected in support of the complaint does not
delivered by the Supreme Court and the high courts				disclose the commission of any offence against the
in this context.				accused person.

As per the scope of this section is concerned , it has				4. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the
a very wide scope. The inherent powers are only				complaint is manifestly attended with malafide or
with the high courts and no other court can exercise				where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
these powers. The high courts are bound to exercise				ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
such powers whenever there is injustice done by the				accused person and with a view to spite him due to
court below. Some of the inherent powers of the				private and personal grudge.
high courts are:
a) quashing of FIRb) quashing of				5. The criminal complaint can be quashed when there
complaintc) quashing of any order passed by				is an express legal bar under any of the provisions of
the court below in revision etc.				the CrPC or any other legislation (under which a
				criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
In this report we are mainly concerned with quashing				continuance of criminal complaint.
of FIR and criminal complaints.
				Thus, if the high court is convinced that the criminal
				complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence and
				the continuation of an investigation is not based on
				sound foundations and would amount to an abuse of
				power of the police necessitating interference to
MAIN TEXT:				secure the ends of justice, the high court will
				exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings.

1. Section 482 :
				In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
It reads as follows :				(AIR 1998 SC 128) :
				the Supreme Court of India observed that:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the				“Though the magistrate can discharge the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such				accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any				charges to be groundless, this does not mean that
order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the				the accused cannot approach the High Court under
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the				section 482 to have the complaint quashed if the
ends of justice.”				complaint does disclose the commission of a
				cognizable offence against the accused person. In this
The section was added by the Code of Criminal				case the Supreme Court held that the order of the
Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923. The section				High Court refusing to quash the complaint on the
envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent				ground that alternate remedy was available under the
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:				CrPC to the accused person was not proper.”

1. to give effect to an order under CrPC,
1. to prevent abuse of the process of the court,
2. to secure the ends of justice.				However it has been held by the Supreme Court of
				India in Om Prakash Singh v. State of UP (2004
The jurisdiction of the high court is confined to the				CrLJ 3567) :
courts subordinate to it in the state for which the
high court has been constituted. An application under				That ‘if a complaint discloses the commission of
section 482 cannot be entertained by any court				a cognizable offence, it would not be a sound
other than the high court. The inherent jurisdiction				exercise of discretion to quash the criminal
possessed by the high court under this section is not				complaint’.
confined to cases pending before it, but extends to
all the cases which may come to its notice whether
in appeal revision or otherwise. Inherent powers
under section 482 can be invoked only in the event				In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others
when there is no other remedy open to the				(2006) 6 SCC 736 ) :
aggrieved party.
				A petition under section 482 was filed to quash two
				criminal complaints. The High Court by common
2. INHERENT JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE HIGH				judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two
COURTS :				complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to
				Supreme Court of India.
The inherent jurisdiction of the high court preserved
under this section is vested in it by law within the				While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of
meaning of article 21 of the constitution . The				India laid down following principles:
procedure for invoking the inherent powers may be
regulated by rules which may have been or be				1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent
framed by the high courts. The power to make such				powers to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.
rules is conferred on the high court by the				The power to quash criminal complaints should be
constitution. Where the rules were previously framed				used sparingly and with abundant caution.
, they continue in force by virtue of article 372 of
the constitution.				2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim
				reproduce the legalingredients of the alleged offence.
				If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
3. HIGH COURT NOT TO FUNCTION AS A COURT				criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few
OF APPEAL OR REVISION :				ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal
				proceedings should not be quashed.
While exercising powers under section 482 the court				Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. It				the complaint is bereft ofeven the basic facts which
also would not enter into the appreciation of				are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged
evidence . Inherent powers are to be very sparingly				offence.
exercised for compelling reasons, when where there
has been any abuse of process of law or any glaring
injustice.				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
4. NO INHERENT POWERS OF SUBORDINATE				) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
COURTS :				commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
				from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy
Under CrPC , inherent powers are vested only in the				in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.
high courtsand the courts subordinate to the high
courts have no inherent powers. In bindeshwari				As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are
Prasad singh v kali singh , the supreme court held				different from a criminalproceeding, the mere fact
that a magistrate has no inherent power to restore a				that the complaint relates to a commercialtransaction
complaint dismissed in default.				or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is
				available or hasbeen availed, is not by itself a ground
				to quash the criminal proceedings. Thetest is whether
5. INHERENT POWER NOT TO BE INVOKED IN				the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal
MATTERS COVERED BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS				offence ornot.
:

The inherent power of the high court under this
section cannot be invoked in regard to matters which				View of the High Courts :
are directly covered by specific provisions of CrPC.
Eg. the petitioner who has a remedy under s. 397
cannot be permitted to invoke s 482. The powers of				In Pasupati Banerji v. King (AIR 1950 cal 97) :
high court under this section are indeed very wide .
However, they can only be exercised in cases where				The court has observed that
there is such a palpable want of jurisdiction in the
proceedings initiated, as would result in unnecessary				“In order to attract the provisions of section 182
harassment and oppression to the accused				of the IPC, it must be established that the person
concerned. The section cannot be invoked to				gave information to a public servant which he knew
supplant the normal processes and inquiries by a				or believed to be false and that he intended thereby
tribunal prescribed in CrPC.				to cause the public servant to use his lawful power
				to the injury or annoyance of any person. It is not
				sufficient that the person had reasons to believe it
6. WHETHER A PERSON WHO HAS NOT APPLIED				was false or that he did not believe it to be true;
UNDER SECTION 482 CAN BE GIVEN RELIEF :				what is necessary that the person must have
				positive knowledge or belief that it was false.”
When the matter comes before the high court , it
can exercise its power under s.482 irrespective of
the consideration as to which of the parties has				In state of maharashtra v mohd yusuf
come before it. The high court can give relief even				noormohammad and others [1990 CrLJ 2106 (bom)] :
to the other accused who did not file any petition
under this section.				The high court held that , in the interest of peace,
				the right of an individual to prosecute his complaint
When the matter is pending before the supreme				may be curtailed by the high court under section 482.
court and that court has ordered the session judge
to issue non bailable warrant for the arrest of the
petitioners, the high court cannot exercise its power
under this section.				CONCLUSION :

				So as per the following report we have seen that
				how the high courts uses its inherent powers and
7. WHEN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE				how important it is for the high courts to use these
:				powers. Section 482 has a very wide scope and its
				really important for the courts to use it properly and
If an effective alternative remedy is available , the				wisely. Many a times it has been observed that when
high court will not exercise its powers under this				there is an issue of money for eg. Any money
section, specially when the applicant may not have				matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit
availed of that remedy. The powers of this section				files an FIR against the other person just to harass
are not usually invoked when there is another				him. In such cases it becomes very important for the
remedy available.				high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to
				the abuse of the process of the lower courts.

8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :				Thus section 482 is very important for acquiring
				proper justice and to stop the public from filing
In a proceeding under section 482, the high court will				fictitious complaints just to fulfill there personal
not enter into any finding of facts , particularly when				grudges.

Stop Csa

Inherent Powers of High Courts(quashing of Fir)

More in Articles