A PROJECT ON

“SECTION 482 , reason for incorporation and its uses in criminal justice
system”

SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Avishek Raj

Faculty, CRPC

SUBMITTED BY
AMARNATH TIWARI
ENROLLMENT NO. 18FLICDDNO2021

SUBMISSION DATE: 25-10-2021

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT –AMARNATH
SIGNATURE OF FACULTY-

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL,

THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY,DEHRADUN
OBJECT AND METHOLOGY
. 
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 administer 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 (Sections 133-
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 Section 482 of this Code.
 Acknowledgement

I, AMARNATH TIWARI, consider it my most humble privilege to have been able to work on
the demanding yet most interesting and enthralling of all issues

Working on this paper has been one of the most enriching experiences of my life and has not
only amassed bulk of highly relevant and extremely functional information, but has also
endowed me with an empirical, at the same time empathetic perspective towards the subject.

In this context, I’d like to extend heartfelt thanks to the people who have rendered this project as
a reality. I would take this privilege to thank my Faculty, MR. AVISHEK RAJ SIR for his
unwavering and unconditional support, incomparable and illuminating knowledge and guidance,
without which this project would not have been feasible.

I would also like to express my earnest gratitude to the ever-so-helpful seniors and my friends
and colleagues and each and every person without whose help, support and guidance, and in fact
mere presence, this project would never have transformed from strands and traces of mere
thought into tangible black and white reality.

Name of Student- Amar nath tiwari

Enrolment - 18FLICDDN02021
INTRODUCTION

This section has not given increased power to High Court which it did not possess before the
section was enacted. It gives no new powers. It only provides that those which the court already
inherently possessed shall be preserved, and is inserted lest it should be considered that the only
powers possessed by the courts are those expressly conferred by the court and no inherent power
survived the passing of the Code. Though the jurisdiction exists and is wide in its scope it is a
rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases, in rarest of rare cases. The
power under section 482 are to be exercised sparingly and not as an appellate/revisional
court.The Supreme Court has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of a High Court given by Section 482 : (1) the power is not to be resorted to
if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(2) it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) it should not be exercised as against the express bar of
law engrafted in any other provisions of the Code.The inherent power overrides the express bar
against revision provided under S. 341 of the Code. Similarly, the power under S. 382 is not
subjected to the limitations imposed on the power of revision conferred by S. 397. It cannot be
invoked with respect to any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code or if its
exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code, or when there is
another remedy available, e.g. a civil proceeding or revision, or when a remedy is available to the
applicant to approach the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution to review High
Court’s order dismissing petition for special leave, or when the powers of the High Court are
expressly limited to a particular matter under an Act. In State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal, The
Supreme Court observed that exercise of power under S. 482 of the Code in a case of this nature
is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court.
It only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It
envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, (iii)
and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While exercising powers under the section though
wide 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. The powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise, Court must be careful to see that its decision in the exercise
of this power is based on sound principles. The High Court being the highest Court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the
Court and the issues involved, when factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their
true perspective without sufficient material, of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in
regard to cases in which High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do right
and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid
alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a
person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist).It would be an abuse of process
of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
Where the High Court has no jurisdiction in revision to interfere with any judgement, order or
sentence passed by a judge of the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction,
the provisions of this section cannot be invoked since the question there is one of jurisdiction.
The High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. The High Court
can exercise this power under Art. 226 of the Constitution or under S. 482 Cr.P.C., either to
prevent abuse of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Exercise of
such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the cases where
such power can be exercised is where the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted to their entirety do not prima constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused. The High Court would exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under S. 482, CrPC where it finds that non interference shall result in abuse of the
process of the court or failure of justice, or where grave is shown to have been caused and
requires to be undone, Where the complaint does not make out any triable case against the
petitioner. The High Court would not quash complaint or FIR merely on the statement of the
Counsel for the State for withdrawal of the case, the decision of the government to withdraw the
prosecution is an irrelevant ground. If the Court is satisfied that there is great miscarriage of
justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory provision has not been
complied with or there is failure of justice, in that event, it is but the duty of the Court to have it
corrected at the inception. Where the criminal proceedings lodged would be mere result in
harassment to the petitioner, the proceeding would be quashed.
SECTION 482 CR.P.C

S482, under the 37th Chapter of the Code – titled 'Miscellaneous' deals with Inherent powers of
the Court.

SEC 482 CR.P.C READS AS FOLLOWS:

"Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice."

WHY THE NEED FOR SECTION 482 CR.P.C?

The powers of the High Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative and partly judicial. The
section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923, as the High
Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable
and apparent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswami– AIR 1977 SC
1489, held that the section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the
court, and to secure the ends of justice".

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court went on to state that, "The section is a sort of reminder to the
High Courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess
inherent powers to remove injustice". The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable
attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. They are necessarily
judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of
justice. The jurisdiction under section 482 is discretionary, therefore, the high court may refuse
to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hand.
Purpose behind its incorporation:-
This section makes it clear that the provisions of the Code are as intended to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Courts. Obviously the inherent power can be exercised only for
either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section. This inherent power cannot
naturally be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code. It
cannot also be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of
the Code. It is only if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provision of the Code
that Section 482 can come into operation, subject further to the requirement that the exercise of
such power must serve either of the three purposes mentioned in the said section. In prescribing
rules of procedure legislature undoubtedly attempts to provide for all the cases that are likely to
arise; but it is not possible that any legislative enactment dealing with the procedure, however
carefully it may be drafted, would succeed in providing for all the cases that may possibly arise
in the future.
 
Lacunae are sometimes discovered in procedural law and it is for the purpose of covering such
lacunae and dealing with such cases where such lacunae are discovered that procedural law
invariably recognises the existence of inherent powers in courts.
 
Here it is extremely important to be noticed that it is only the High Court whose inherent power
has been recognised by Section 482, and even in regard to the High Court’s inherent power
definite statutory safeguards have been laid down as to its exercise.
 ”,
It is only where the High Court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be
rendered ineffective or that the process of any court would be abused or that the ends of justice
would not be secured that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent powers under
Section 482 of this Code.
 
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for
all cases which may possibly arise.
 
It has also been held that Section 482 cannot be invoked in non- criminal proceedings such as
those under the Customs Act.
 
“Inherent jurisdiction “to prevent abuse of process”, “to secure the ends of justice” are terms
incapable of definition or enumeration, and capable at the most of test, according to well
established principles of criminal jurisprudence. “Process” is a general word meaning in effect
anything done by the court. The framers of the Code could not have provided all the cases that
should be included within the meaning of abuse of process of court. It is for the court to take
decision in particular cases.

WHAT ARE THE REAL POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT U/S 482
CR.P.C.?

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.

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 Cr.P.C. may be exercised :-
1. To give effect to an order under the Code.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of Court.
3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

“To prevent abuse of process of any court”

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.

Test to determine whether there has been an abuse of any court are:-
1. 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.
2. Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be a mock trial if case is allowed
to proceed.

Reasons HC can interfere:

1. Long lapse of time
2. 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.

“To secure 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 of inherent jurisdiction of the HC:
1. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress of
grievances of aggrieved party
2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice
3. 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.
Conclusion:-
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 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK’S REFERRED

R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 6TH EDITION, 2016.

RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL’S THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

LEXIS NEXIS, 22 ND EDITION. SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

ONLINE REFRRENCES

ALL INDIA REPORTER

SCC ONLINE

MANUPATRA