INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

SILIGURI

Session: 2023-2024

ASSIGNMENT ON Law of Crimes I

Topic – Section 482: Inherent Powers of High Court – A
Case-Based Examination (Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana

Submitted by: Adreeja Bagchi

Roll No.: 103
Course: LLB 3Years
Semester: 2nd
Submitted to: Mr. Prasun Kumar
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my teacher Mr. Prasun Kumar for his moral
support and guidance in completing this assignment on “Section 482: Inherent Powers of
High Court – A Case-Based Examination (Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana”. His
knowledge and feedback have helped me a lot in gathering information about this project.

I would also like to thank my fellow mates, for their assistance and guidance whenever I was
in doubt.

At last, I would like to thank my family. I will always be grateful to them for their belief in
me and my ability.

Without their help, this assignment would not be complete.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPICS PAGE NO.

INTRODUCTION

EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENCES

CONCLUSION

CASE ANALYSIS

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION

Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code: This section states that if any person uses any
type of false property mark with the intention to commit fraud or with another ulterior motive
then that person should be punished with imprisonment for up to one year or fine or both
unless the person proves that his/her intention was pure and not to commit any type of fraud.

What is the property mark according to the Indian Penal Code?

According to the Indian Penal Code, any type of mark on any movable property which shows
that that property belongs to a specific person, or any mark on the movable property as an
identification mark is called a property mark.

Is IPC 482 a bailable or non-bailable offence?

Offence under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code is a bailable offence.

Whether section 482 of the Indian Penal Code is a cognizable or non-

cognizable offence?

Offence under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence.

Punishment for offence under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code: The person charged
under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code shall be punished with imprisonment up to one
year or fine or both.

Where is the trial?

It can be trial in front of any magistrate who is having jurisdiction over the property of the
matter.

What to do if you get charged under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code?

The first thing a person should do, especially in cases that are criminal in nature, is to contact
a good criminal lawyer who is having ideas and experience in the field you are concerned
about. Describe the facts of the case including small or big details. Since it is a bailable
offence unless the magistrate has a reason to deny the bail there is a chance that the accused
gets the bail. The accused has to present in front of the magistrate during the trial. After that
on the basis of facts and evidence, the magistrate will pass the judgment.
 EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENCES

1. Lack of Intent to Defraud: The primary exception is if the accused can demonstrate
that they did not have the intent to defraud. This could include situations where:
▪ The accused believed the property mark was genuine.
▪ The false property mark was used accidentally or without knowledge of its
falsity.
2. Good Faith Use: If the accused can show that they used the property mark in good
faith, believing it to be legitimate, they might be exempt from punishment. Good faith
implies honesty and a lack of intent to deceive.
3. Mistake of Fact: If the accused was mistaken about a fact that led to the use of the
false property mark (e.g., they were misled by a supplier or manufacturer), this can be
a defense. Under Section 79 of IPC, if a person acts under a mistake of fact in good
faith, believing themselves to be bound or justified by law, they may not be held
liable.
4. Authorization: If the accused had authorization to use the mark but the mark was
later found to be false, proving this authorization can serve as a defense.
5. Absence of Harm or Loss: In some cases, if the use of the false property mark did
not cause any harm or financial loss, this might be considered in mitigation of the
offense, though it might not be a complete defense.

Examples of Defenses:

1. Belief in Authenticity: A shopkeeper uses a trademark believing it to be genuine

because it was provided by a trusted supplier. Upon discovery that the trademark was
false, the shopkeeper can argue lack of intent to defraud.
2. Clerical Error: An employee mistakenly uses an incorrect property mark due to a
clerical error, with no intention of defrauding customers or the company.
3. Legitimate Authorization: A distributor uses a property mark with permission from
the original owner, but it is later found that the mark had been altered without their
knowledge. The distributor can claim they acted under authorization and without
intent to defraud.
 CONCLUSION

Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code aims to uphold the integrity of property marks by
penalizing their fraudulent use. This section imposes penalties, including imprisonment and
fines, for using false property marks with the intent to deceive. However, it also provides a
safeguard for those who can prove they acted without fraudulent intent, offering defenses
such as lack of intent to defraud, good faith use, mistake of fact, and legitimate authorization.
By balancing the need to protect consumers and businesses from deceit with the recognition
of honest mistakes, Section 482 ensures a fair and just approach to maintaining trust and
authenticity in property marks.
 CASE ANALYSIS

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.

The case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of
India, decided on November 21, 1990. This case involved Bhajan Lal, a prominent politician
accused of corruption, whose FIR was quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The
State of Haryana appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court outlined the circumstances under which High Courts can
exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
to quash FIRs. The Court provided specific guidelines, known as the "Bhajan Lal guidelines,"
to prevent the misuse of legal processes and protect individuals from frivolous or malicious
prosecutions. This ruling is frequently cited in cases concerning the quashing of FIRs,
balancing police investigative authority with individuals' rights against unjust legal
harassment.

Issues:

1. Was the High Court justified in quashing the FIR against Bhajan Lal at the
preliminary stage of the investigation?
2. What are the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
criminal proceedings, including FIRs?
3. What criteria should be used to decide whether an FIR can be quashed?
4. Does the FIR constitute an abuse of the legal process?
5. How should the law balance the investigative powers of the police with the rights
of individuals to be protected from unjust and baseless criminal prosecution?
6. Do the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case against Bhajan Lal?
Facts:

In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Bhajan Lal, a prominent politician and then
Chief Minister of Haryana, was accused of corruption and misuse of power, leading to the
registration of an FIR alleging he accumulated assets disproportionate to his known income.
Bhajan Lal challenged the FIR in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed it on
the grounds that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offense. The State of Haryana
appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined the High Court's powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash FIRs. The Supreme Court ultimately
outlined the "Bhajan Lal guidelines," specifying the conditions under which FIRs can be
quashed to prevent misuse.

Judgement:

In its judgment on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, delivered on November 21, 1990, the
Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of quashing FIRs and outlined guidelines under
which High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that while the inherent powers of the
High Court can be used to prevent abuse of the legal process or to secure the ends of justice,
such powers should be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The Supreme Court laid down
specific categories where FIRs can be quashed, including cases where allegations are absurd,
inherently improbable, or where there is no prima facie case made out against the accused.
This landmark judgment, often referred to for its "Bhajan Lal guidelines," provides a
structured framework for judicial intervention in criminal matters to ensure fairness and
prevent harassment through misuse of legal procedures.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Website:

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/7332.pdf
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-482-
crpc/#:~:text=The%20case%20of%20State%20of,criminal%20proce
edings%20against%20an%20accused.
3. https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-482