Features of section 482

1. While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the Trial Judge/Court. [1]

2. Ends of Justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those
appeals rather than entertaining petitions under section 482 at an interlocutory stage which
after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to
delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence,
ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice. [2]

3. Inherent Jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in section
itself. [3]

4. High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while
exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal
application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent Jurisdiction can be
exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised
in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings. [4]

5. In matrimonial offences it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes. [5]

6. The extraordinary power under section 482 have to be exercised sparingly and should not be
resorted to like remedy of appeal or revision. [6]

1. State of Andhra Pradesh V Gourishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 SC 588.

2. Hamida V. Rashid, 2008 1 SCC 474.
3. Monica Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 8 SCC 781.
4. Popular Muthiah V. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, 206 7 SCC 296.
5. B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386.
6. Kavita V. State, 2000 Cr LJ 315 (Delhi).

7. 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.
Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these
considerations are kept in mind there will be inconsistency between sections 397(2) and 482 of
this Cr.P.C.[1]
 8. To prevent abuse of the process of the court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under
section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only
when the complaint did not ndisclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive.[2]

9. In exercising jurisdiction under section 482 High Court would not embark upon enquiry whether
the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.[3]

1. Basudev Bhoi v. Bipadabham (1997) 2 Crimes 331 (Ori).

2. Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasana Kumar. (1990) Cr LJ 320 1990 SC 494.

3. State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 183.