SECTION 482:

The Inherent Powers of High Court in India

The essential object of criminal law is to protect society against criminals and law-
breakers. For this purpose, the law holds out threats of punishments to prospective
lawbreakers as well as attempts to make the actual offenders suffer the prescribed the
punishment for their crimes. Therefore, criminal law, in its wider sense, consists of both the
substantive criminal law as well as the procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law
defines offences and prescribes punishments for the same, while the procedural law is to
administrate the substantive law

Our legal system’s law of crime is mainly contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which has come into force from April 1, 1974. It provides the machinery for the detection of
crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of the guilt
or innocence of the suspected person and the imposition of suitable punishment on the guilty
person. In addition, this Code also deals with the prevention of offences (Sections 106- 124,
129- 132 and 144- 153), maintenance of wives, children and parents (Sections 125- 128) and
public.nuisances(Sections133-143).

The Code also controls and regulates the working of the machinery set up for the
investigation and trial of offences. On the one hand it has to give adequately wide powers to
make the investigation and adjudicatory processes strong, effective and efficient, and on the
other hand, it has to take precautions against errors of judgement and human failures and to
provide safeguards against probable abuse of powers by the police or judicial officers. This
often involves a “nice balancing of conflicting considerations, a delicate weighing of
opposing claims clamouring for recognition and the extremely difficult task of deciding
which of them should predominate”.

The Code has obviously tried to make itself exhaustive and complete in every respect; and it
has generally succeeded in this attempt. However, if the Court finds that the Code has not
made specific provision to meet the exigencies of any situation, the court of law has inherent
power to mould the procedure to enable it to pass such orders as the ends of justice may
require.

It has however been declared by the Supreme Court that the subordinate courts do not have
any inherent powers. The High Court has inherent powers and they have been given partial
statutory recognition by enacting 482 of code

Background of section 482

The power to quash an FIR (First Information Report) is among the inherent powers of the
High Courts of India. Courts possessed this power even before the Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC) was enacted. Added as Section 482 by an amendment in 1923, it is a reproduction of
the section 561(A) of the 1898 code. Since high courts could not render justice even in cases
in which the illegal was apparent, the section was created as a reminder to the courts that they
exist to prevent injustice done by a subordinate court.

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

Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the exception and not rule – Inherent
jurisdiction of High court under section 482 of Cr.P.C may be exceeded:

1. To give effect to an order undr the code:

Ordinarily HC will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceeding in
subordinate court but, HC is under an obligation to interfere if there is harassment of
any person (Indian citizen) by illegal prosecution. It would also do so when there is
any exceptional or extraordinary reasons for doing so.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of the court:
Test to determine whether there has been any abuse of any court are
 See whether a bare statement of facts of case would be sufficient to convince
HC if it is a fit case for interference at intermediate stage.
 Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be a mock trial if case is
allowed to proceed.

Reasons for High Court can interfere:

 Long lapse of time

  Failure or impossibility to supply to accused, copies of police statements
and other relevant documents- grounds for other relevant documents-
grounds for HC to quash proceedings against accused.
3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice:
Eg. When a clear statutory provision of law is violated- HC can interfere. It is of
vital importance in the administration of justice, and ensure proper freedom and
independence of Judges must be maintained and allowed to perform their functions
freely and fearlessly without undue influence on anyone, even SC. At the same time
Judges and Magistrate should act with a certain amount of justice and fair play.

The SC in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, has held the following principles would
govern the exrcise the inheritance jurisdiction of High Cout
I. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress
of grievances of aggrieved party.
II. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress
of grievances of ends of justice.
III. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any
other provision of the code.

It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should
be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of
this Court.

LIMITATION ON SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C

Even though the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is very wide, it
has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised exdebito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone, courts exist.
This view has been taken by the Hon'ble SC in many of its judgments including the recent
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
In a proceeding under section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts,
particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts
below.

In State of Bihar and another v. K.J.D. Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had a question
whether the Criminal Proceedings can be quashed even before the Commencement of the
Trial. The Supreme Court went ahead and held that "The inherent power under Section 482
has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut
short the normal process of a criminal trial. After a review of catena of authorities, Pendian,
J. in Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (supra) has deprecated the practice of staying criminal
trials and police investigations except in exceptional cases and the present case is certainly
not one of these exceptional cases."

In R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, Hon'ble Supreme court went on to limit the powers of the
Hon'ble High Court within the ambit of the Cr.P.C. It was held, "Inherent power of the High
Court cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are directly covered
by specific provisions in the Cr.P.C.".

It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no
other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its
powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

THE HIGH COURTS OF INDIA: COMPOSITION, APPOINTMENT  OF JUDGES

AND OTHER DETAILS!

Article 214 says that every State has a High Court operating within its territorial
jurisdiction. But the Parliament has the power to establish a common High Court for two or
more States (Article 231). For Instance, Punjab and Haryana have a common High Court.
Similarly there is one High Court for Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.

In India, neither the State executive nor the State Legislature has any power to control the
High Courts or two after its Constitution or organisation. It is only Parliament which can do
it. In case of Union Territories the Parliament may by law extend the jurisdiction of a High
Court to or exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court from any Union Territory, or create a
High Court for a Union Territory.

Thus Delhi, a Union Territory, has a separate High Court of its own while the Madras High
Court has jurisdiction over Pondicherry, the Kerala High Court over Lakshadweep and
Mumbai High Court over Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the Kolkata High Court over Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, the Punjab High court over Chandigarh.

COMPOSITION OF HIGH COURTS:

(i) Every High Court shall consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President
of India may from time to time appoint.

(ii) Besides, the President has the power to appoint

(a) Additional Judges for a temporary period not exceeding two years, for the clearance of
areas of work in a High Court;

(b) an acting judge, when a permanent judge of a High Court (other than Chief Justice) is
temporarily absent or unable to perform his duties or is appointed to act temporarily as Chief
Justice.

But neither an additional nor an acting Judge can hold office beyond the age of 62 years (by
15th Amendment) Act age of retirement raised from 60 to 62.

APPOINTMENT AND CONDITIONS OF OFFICE OF A JUDGE OF A HIGH

COURT:

Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President. In making the appointment,
the President shall consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State (and also the
Chief Justice of that High Court in the matter of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief
Justice).