CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

“INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT”

Submitted to:-
Dr. P.K. MISHRA sir
Faculty of Law,
Central university of South Bihar
Submitted by:-
ABHIJEET ARYAN
LLM
LLM (BATCH: 2019-2020)
CUSB1913131002
(1st semester, 1st year)

1|Page
 CONTENTS

S.NO. TOPIC Page No.

1. TITLE OF THE PROJECT
 Research Problem
 Research Hypothesis
 Research Methodology
 Acknowledgement
 Sources of information accumulation
 Table of cases

2. INTRODUCTION
 Meaning
 Background

3. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF INHERENT POWER UNDER C.PC.

 Section 148
 Section 148-A
 Section 149
 Section 150
 Section 151
 Section 152&153

4. THE SCOPE OF INHERENT POWER UNDER SECTION 151 Of C.P.C.

5. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
 Case laws

6. EXERCISE OF INHERENT POWER BY THE COURT.

7. LIMITATIONS
 Section 482 of Crpc
 Section 151 of Cpc

2|Page
8. INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER CR.PC.
 Scope of section 482
 Nature of power under section 482
 Judicial openion

9. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

3|Page
 RESEARCH PROBLEM

The main question that focuses on:

 What is the Inherent Power of High Court?

 What is the relevant sections of cr.pc and c.pc regarding inherent power of high court?

 Whether the Supreme Court has done and fulfilled its duty while giving proper
guidelines or not?

 What is the current status of inherent power of high court?

4|Page
 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The main issues that can be raised are-

 Whether section 482 of Cr.pc clearly talks about Inherent Power or not ?
 Whether section 151 of C.pc talks about limitation of high courts or not ?

5|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Gratitude and thanks giving are a part of formal protocol, which is indeed to be followed
while preparing a project report.
I feel myself highly delighted, as it gives me incredible pleasure to present a research work
on INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT”.
I would like to enlighten my readers regarding this topic and I hope I have tried my best to
pave the way for bringing more luminosity to this topic.
For this first and foremost I would like to thank God Almighty.
I express my sincere thanks to Sir, Dr. P.K.Mishra sir (faculty of law) for providing such an
interesting topic.
I am indebted to my parents and siblings for guiding and motivating me all the time.
I am also thankful to my kith and kins. Last but not the least; I would like to thank all concern
for their interest in providing me a good back up for the material.

ABHIJEET ARYAN
(STUDENT)
LLM (BATCH: 2019-2020)
CUSB1913131002
(1st semester, 1st year)

6|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The motivation behind this examination is to contemplate distinctive rules, books, cases,
articles, reports and so on and reveal extraordinary studies and development in this field.
Subsequently the exploration procedure received here will be simply doctrinal. The present
study will be descriptive study. The literature for the study will be collected from various
sources. The present work depend heavily on the book review of both the national and
international authors, law journals and periodicals, articles, research papers, newspapers,
government reports and various other primary and secondary sources. To make the findings
of the study to reach at meaningful conclusion, an attempt will also, be made to discuss,
examine, analyse and critically evaluate different dimension of democracy and public law
and provisions for it. The motivation behind this examination is to contemplate distinctive
rules, books, cases, articles, reports and so on and reveal extraordinary studies and
development in this field. Subsequently the exploration procedure received here will be
simply doctrinal.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ACCUMULATION

I. Books on safeguard laws.

ii. Judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court.
iii. Resolutions on safeguard.
iv. Related articles.
v. E-sources.

7|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

1. M/s. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) v. Kanhayalal
Bhargava

2. Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel

3. K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy

4. Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra

5. State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali

6. Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

7. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors

8. D.Venkatasubramaniam and Others v. M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari and Another.

9. Anurag Baitha v. Territory of Bihar AIR 1978 Pat. 274.

10. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

11. State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa lyengar.

12. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) see 335.

13. R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka & another, (1992) 1 SCC 335.

14. S.P. Sampathkumarv. Union of India, AIR 1987 se 386.

15. Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

16. State of Bihar and another v. K.J.D. Singh.

17. R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab.

8|Page
INTRODUCTION

Law has always been an essential element of society. It was there even when men was
uncivilized and it is even today when we have reached into much sophisticated world. The
presence of law is made much known to us with the existence of courts. The Courts existed
when there was no written statutes on the fundamental principle to do justice and to
peacefully settle the matter. They are not as old as law but law got a recognition by courts
only. They hold a very high position in society by virtue of its duty to do justice between the
parties. Every court is constituted for the purpose of administering justice between the parties
and, therefore must be deemed to possess all such powers as may be necessary to do the right
and to undo the wrong in the process of administering the justice. The Code of Civil
Procedure is a procedural law and the provisions thereof must be liberally construed to
advance the cause of justice and further its ends since the basic function of the courts is to do
justice rather than focusing on the procedural part of the parties.
The Code of Civil Procedure1 acknowledges the powers along with limitations on the courts
but there are some powers which are vested in the court but not prescribed in the code and
those are the Inhereent powers. The inherent powers of the court are in addition to the powers
specifically conferred by the code on the court. They are complementary to those powers.
The court is free to exercise them for the ends of the justice or to prevent the abuse of the
process of court. The main aim of this study is to find out the relevant sections dealing with
inherent powers of court under CPC, to analyse how the court exercise its inherent powers, to
find out the scope of inherent powers exercised by the court under section 151 of the CPC, to
understand what are the limitations of the inherent powers of the court.

Inherent:-Meaning
The word “Inherent” is very broad in itself. It means existing and inseparable from
something, a permanent attribute or quality, an essential element, something intrinsic, or
essential, vested in or attached to a person or office as a right of privilege. Hence, inherent
powers are such powers which are inalienable from courts and may be exercised by a court to
do full and complete justice between the parties before it.

Relevant Sections Of Inherent Powers Under Civil Procedure Code

Section 148 :- It talks about enlargement of time. Where any period is fixed or granted by the
Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its
discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period [not exceeding thirty days in total, even
though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.

1
The code of civil procedure,1908

9|Page
Section 148A2 :- This section talks about right to lodge a caveat.
1. Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or
proceedings instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a
right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat
in respect thereof.
2. Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the person by whom the caveat
has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveator shall serve a notice of the
caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due, on the person by whom the
application has been or is expected to be, made, under sub-section (1).
3. Where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), any application is filed in
any suit or proceeding, the Court, shall serve a notice of the application on the
caveator.
4. Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith
furnish the caveator at the caveator,s expense, with a copy of the application made by
him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed
by him in support of the application.
5. Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), such caveat shall not remain in
force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged unless the
application referred to in subsection (1) has been made before the expiry of the said
period.
Section 149 :- This section talks about, Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees. Where
the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in
force relating to court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage,
allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be,
of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is
payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.
Section 150 :- It talks about transfer of business. Save as otherwise provide, where the
business of any Court is transferred to any other Court, the Court to which the business is so
transferred shall have the same powers and shall perform the same duties as those
respectively conferred and imposed by or under this Code upon the Court from which the
business was so transferred
Section 151 :- This section talks about Saving of inherent powers of the code. Nothing in this
code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise effect the inherent powers of the court to make
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process
of the court.
Section 152 :- This section tells that amendment of judgements, decrees or orders. Clerical or
arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any
accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own
motion or on the application of any of the parties.

2
Section 148A of Cpc

10 | P a g e
Section 153 :- This section talks about general powers to amendment. The Court may at any
time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error
in any proceeding in a suit, and all necessary amendments shall be made of the purpose of
determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.
Section 153-A :- Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed.
Where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under rule 11 of Order XLI, the power of the
Court to amend, under section 152, the decree or order appealed against may be exercised by
the Court which had passed the decree or order in the first instance, notwithstanding that the
dismissal of the appeal has the effect of confirming the decree or order, as the case may be,
passed by the Court of first instance.
Exercise Of Inherent Power by the Courts :-
In the cases where the C.P.C does not deal with, the Court will exercise its inherent power to
do justice. If there are specific provision of the C.P.C dealing with the specific issue and they
expressly or by basic implication, then the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked as
inherent powers itself means those which are not specified in C.P.C. The section confers on
the judges to make such orders that may be necessary to make justice achievable. The Power
can be invoked to support the provisions of the code but not to override or evade other
express provisions as C.P.C. is the basic law which governs the functioning of the courts.

Judicial Interpretation :-
The inherent powers saved by s. 151 of the Code are not over the substantive rights which
any litigant possesses. Specific powers have to be conferred on the Courts for passing such
orders.
In Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal3, the SC held that the Court would not
exercise its inherent power under S.151 CPC if it was inconsistent with the powers expressly
or impliedly conferred by other provisions of Code. It had opined that the Court had an
undoubted power to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
The Apex Court in M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. The Commissioner of I.T4,
has maintained that the Courts had power under Section 151, in the absence of any express or
implied prohibition, to pass an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
the abuse of the process of the Court.
In M/s. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Barabanki U.P.) v. Kanhayalal Bhargava5,
the appellant contended that during the pendency of the first suit, certain subsequent events
had taken place due to which the first was not fruitful and in law the said suit could not be
kept pending and continued solely for the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the
said suit. While examining the question the Supreme Court was to consider whether the court
can take cognizance of a subsequent event to decide whether the pending suit should be
disposed or not. The question arose was whether, a defendant could make an application

3
Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanhayalal
4
M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. The Commissioner of I.T
5
M/s. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Barabanki U.P.) v. Kanhayalal Bhargava

11 | P a g e
under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the pending suit on the ground that the said suit has
lost its cause of action. The Court upheld the contention.
In Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel6, case the plaint of a Money Suit was rejected for
nonpayment of deficit court fee within the time granted by the court. The plaintiff filed a
petition under Section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of the suit in the ends of justice. The court
allowed the petition and the suit was restored to file. This Court examined the scope of the
inherent powers of the Court and expressed that the provisions of the Code do not control the
inherent powers of the court by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. It is a power inherent in
the court by virtue of its duties to do justice between the parties before it.
It was held in the case of Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal7 that the provisions of the Code are not
exhaustive as the legislature is incapable of contemplating all possible circumstances which
may arise in future litigation.
The Scope Of Inherent Power Exercised by the Court Under Section 151 Of C.P.C.
More than seven decades back, the Privy Council in the case of Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmed, observed that Section 561A (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code) had not
given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted.
It was observed “The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the
court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted lest, as their Lordships
think, it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those expressly
conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the
passing of the Code.” In the very recent verdict of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court upheld that Section 151 of the Code recognizes the discretionary
power inherited by every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance
with law, to do what is „right‟ and undo what is „wrong‟.
The Court summarized the scope of Section 151 of the CPC as follows:-

 Section 151 is not a substantive provision which confers any power or jurisdiction on
courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power of every court for rendering
justice in accordance with law, to do what is `right‟ and undo what is `wrong‟, that is,
to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its
process.
 The provisions of the Code are not exhaustive; section 151 says that if the Code does
not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power
can be used by the court to deal with such situation, to achieve the ends of justice,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
 A Court has no power to do things which is prohibited by law or the Code, in the
exercise of its inherent powers. The court cannot make use of the special provisions of
Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is expressly provided in the
Code.

6
Bahadur Pradhani v. Gopal Patel
7
Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal

12 | P a g e
  The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically
conferred, a court is free to exercise them and the court should exercise it in a way
that it should not be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code.
 While exercising the inherent power, there is no such legislative guidance to deal with
those special situations of the case and so the exercise of power depends upon the
discretion and wisdom of the court, and also upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. So, such consequential situation should not however be treated as a carte
blanche to grant any relief.
 The power under section 151 will have to be used with care, only where it is
absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter or
when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted or when such exercise is to
meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.
Limitations :-

 They can be exercised only in the absence of express provisions in the code.
 They cant be exercised in conflict with expressly provision in the code.
 They can be exercised in exceptional cases.
 While exercising the powers, the court has to follow the procedure prescribed by the
legislature.
 Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction not vested in them by law;39 vi) To abide by the
doctrine of Res Judicata i.e., not to open the issues which have already been decided
finally.
 To direct an arbitrator to make an award afresh.
 Substantive rights of the parties shall not be taken away.
 To restrain a party from taking proceedings in a court of law.
 To set aside an order which was right at the time of its issuance.

Inherent Power Of High Court Under Cr.pc.

The Indian Criminal System aims to protect society against the offenders and punish them
according to law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738 the Court is empowered to
punish the accused. The Code has prescribed the elaborated procedure in every aspect
however, it does not provide any specific provision to meet the exigencies of the situation. To
meet this extengencies the Courts have inherent powers to pass the judgment requires to
secure the ends of justice.
Section 482 of the Code provides inherent powers to High Courts. Section 482 particularly
deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. The section saves inherent
powers of High Court and prohibits all such things which limit or curtails such power. The
inherent power oh High Court can be exercised:-

8
The code of criminal procedure,1973

13 | P a g e
  To give effect to an order under the Code; or

 To prevent abuse of the process of Court; or

 To secure the ends of justice.

The section provides the specific provisions where the inherent powers can be exercised. No
such power can be exercised other than those which are specifically provided. Also, these
powers cannot be invoked where any specific provision for a particular case is made. The
section in its very sense talks to save the powers, however, on the other hand, it limits the
power by prescribing the specific provisions where these powers can be exercised.
Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any
criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are
of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice,
prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can
always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers
u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of
the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
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, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

Nature of Power Under Section 482.

The power under this section is to be exercised cautiously and carefully and within the
limitation set under the section. The Supreme Court in its pronouncement in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., provided that its difficult to lay any exhaustive list where the inherent
powers can be exercised. However, in following kinds this power can be exercised:-

 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.
 Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. 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.
 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.
 Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police

14 | P a g e
 officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the
Code.
 Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.
 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.
 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 a private and personal grudge.
The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, does not lay any general
proposition limiting the power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as
vested in section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, it for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR
becomes necessary. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power. Section 482 is very wide
in its nature and it is important for Courts to look upon it wisely. The nature of the power is
mainly to empower the Courts to secure the administration of justice which can be
compromised by filing vexatious criminal proceedings.

Judicial Openion regarding section 482 of Cr.p.c.

In the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam and Others v. M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari and
Another, the respondent lodged FIR against appellants alleging commission of offences under
sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Even while investigation was in progress respondent filed
petition under section 482 of CrPC. The high court directed the police to expedite and
complete investigation. Hence the issue in the present appeal was whether it was open to the
high court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC to interfere with statutory
power of investigation by police and if such a power is available with the court, what are the
parameters for its interference. The high court cannot direct investigating agency to
investigate a case in accordance with its views as that would amount to unwarranted
interference. In the present case, the high court, without recording any reason whatsoever,
directed police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest,
and seizure of property and filing of charge sheet. The high court interfered with
investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of police. It was held in the
present case that without realising the consequences, the high court issued directions in a
casual and mechanical manner without hearing appellants. The order of the high court was
held to be an order passed overstepping the limits of judicial interference and hence null and
void.

15 | P a g e
In State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa lyengar9, the court held that even if both complainant and
accused filed petition to compound the offences, it was to defeate statutory bar by resorting
inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
State of Kerala v. Kolakkacanmoosa Haji10, the Magistrate issued order under section 156(3)
of the procedure Code directing the Inspector General of Police to investigate a crime. It was
under challenge. The High Court held that the Magistrate was empowered to forward the
complaint to the officer in-charge of the Police Station for investigation. The order of the
Magistrate forwarding the complaint to the Inspector General of Police was without
jurisdiction and hence quashed. But, the High Court under Article 226 could direct superior
police officers to investigate a crime. It can be gainful that the High Court under inherent
powers also can issue direction. A Magistrate having neither inherent power nor original
jurisdiction, could not issue such a direction.
R. C. Goenka v. Som Nath Jain11, the question involved was stay of criminal proceedings.
Accused was entrusted with money for the purpose of investment in share. The accused was
alleged to have caused loss to the complainant in share business, Civil Proceedings were
pending between the parties. Moreover, there was no sufficient ground to continue criminal
proceedings in the absence of any agreement and finding by the Civil court, as to the
involvement of any fraud. The High Court's extraversion is encouraged by its duty to secure
the ends of justice.
Chatu v. State of Haryana12, the High Court had to consider the decision of a State Level
Committee for premature release of prisoners. The Committee rejected the prayer of the
petitioner. High Court invoking inherent powers, quashed the - order of the Committee and
directed to reconsider the case afresh.
Ramesh Narang v. Rama Narang13, the question of suspension of sentence was considered. It
was held that appellate court could not suspend the order of conviction by resorting to section
482 Cr.P.C. Appellate court has power of execution of sentence alone. Power of appellate
court flows from the provision of the Code. It cannot exercise inherent powers in the name of
interest of justice.

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

9
State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa lyengar
10
State of Kerala v. Kolakkacanmoosa Haji
11
R. C. Goenka v. Som Nath Jain
12
Chatu v. State of Haryana
13
Ramesh Narang v. Rama Narang

16 | P a g e
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. Singh14, 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 Punjab15, 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.

14
State of Bihar and another v. K.J.D. Singh
15
R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab

17 | P a g e
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Today we live in an age where the legal system highly developed. The governance of rights
and liabilities depend upon the law and its principles, rather than equality, and we still find
the basis of such laws in the concept of justice. Justice has been the central theme of all the
civilizations of the world. In our legal system, every court is composed for the purpose of
serving justice to the people. The court must be deemed to possess all such powers that may
be necessary to do the right thing, and to undo the wrong in the process of providing justice.
The court has an inherent duty to stop the abuse of the existing processes of the court. The
court has often used Article-142 of the Indian Constitution, as a tool for doing complete
justice. The Supreme Court has always risen to the occasion to ensure that the supremacy of
law prevails, yet its strict adherence does harm to no one.
In the CPC, it may be suggested that the norms laid down by the courts in the exercise of
inherent powers together with restriction and limitation on the exercise of such power, can be
codified in the form of rules to be framed by the Supreme Court and be made available to the
courts for their guidance.
In the code of criminal procedure,1973 section-482 is really important and has a wide scope
for the courts to use it in a proper way. Section 482 CrPC has a very wide scope and it’s
really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely. Many a time it has been observed
that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of
filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other person just to harass him. In such cases it
becomes very important for the High Courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse
of the process of the lower courts. This section would enable the courts for providing proper
justice and also should be exercised to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to
fulfil their personal grudges.
However, In my openion Justice Dhingra explained section 482 of Cr.pc very briefly and
broadly that He said that “While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. the
Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. This is a function of the Trial Court. Though the judicial process
should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment but the Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances in consideration before issuing process under Section 482 lest the Section
becomes an instrument in the hands of accused persons to claim differential treatment only
because the accused persons can spend money to approach higher forums. This Section is not
an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its
sudden death”.

18 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

1. Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.

2. Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Criminal Procedure Code, Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal.

4. Manupatra.

5. Basu, D.D. (2013). Introduction to the Constitution of India, (LexisNexis, Haryana,

2013 (p.30).

6. Constitution of India (1950), as amended in 2007, Government of India, Ministry of

Law and Justice; http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf

7. jstor

8. Legal serviceindia.com.

9. Lectures on criminal procedure,R.V.Kelkar.

10. criminal procedure code, 1973.

11. Singh, Mahendra P. (2010). Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, New
Delhi, 2010 (p. 363, 914).

19 | P a g e