1. 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."

2. The powers of the High Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative
and partly judicial.

"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".

This section does not give new powers to the High court. It only provides
that those which the court inherently possessed shall be preserved.

3. 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 hands.

4. 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.
 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.

4. 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.

5. Ordinarily, a High Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of

criminal proceeding in a 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 are any exceptional or
extraordinary reasons for doing so.

The Supreme Court, in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, has said, " Where
the impugned interlocutory order clearly brings about a situation which is
an abuse of the process of the court then for the purpose of securing the
ends of justice, interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary and
nothing contained in Section 397 (2) can limit or affect the exercise of the
inherent power of the High Court".

The SC, further, in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, has held that the
following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of
the HC:

A. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for

redress of grievances of aggrieved party.

B. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any

Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

C. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted
in any other provision of the code.

7. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1)

SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in
detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to
quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the
legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High
Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
A. 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.

B. Where the allegations in the first information report and other

materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.

C . Where the allegations made in the FIR 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.

D. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence

but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

E. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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.

F. 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.

G. 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 private and personal grudge.

8. 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 the courts below.

9. 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.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in a significant judgment in Neeharika

Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 315, held that High Courts must be circumspect in the use of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The SC
directed High Courts not to pass blanket orders of stay of investigation
without providing sufficient reasoning. The Court stipulated some guiding
principles to be considered by High Courts while adjudicating quashing
petitions.

The Courts must not thwart the investigation at a premature stage and allow
the law to take its own course.
The Court took note of the seminal principles laid down in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and RP Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR
1960 SC 866. In Bhajan Lal, the Court had observed that the FIR must be
quashed when the allegations in the FIR, despite being accepted, at their
face value in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence. In RP
Kapur, it was held that powers under Section 482 must be exercised when
there is a legal bar on the institution of proceedings.

The Courts must only interfere in cases where the exercise of the power of
investigation is mala fide or not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter
XII of the CrPC or where there is an abuse of the process.
The Court noted that certain cases involving civil liability are masqueraded as
criminal disputes, with the intent to harass and pressurize the accused and
that there also may be genuine allegations, which the police, by mandate, is
required to enquire and investigate. A fine balance must be maintained in
ensuring that the actual perpetrators are taken to task and the lives of
innocents are not jeopardized by an abuse of the process. The Court has also
directed that if the facts are hazy and the investigation has only commenced,
then the concerned agency must be allowed to continue investigation.

438
The Court deprecated the practice of the High Courts directing investigating
agencies not to arrest or take any coercive action till the final report or
chargesheet is filed under Section 173 of the CrPC, whilst dismissing
petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.
The Court relied upon the decision in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah
Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 (Habib Jeelani), where the SC had observed
that such directions under Section 482 petitions amounted to orders under
Section 438 of the CrPC, notwithstanding the conditions of the said provision
not being satisfied. The SC cautioned High Courts from passing any orders
against the dictum in Habeeb Jeelani, as such orders are unsustainable and
untenable in law.
In its decision, the Court set aside the specific condition of no coercive
measures to be taken against the Respondents with respect to the FIR and
directed the High Court to decide the quashing petition on its merits in light
of the observations made.

11. Principles undery section 482:

A. Ex debito justititiae: to do that real or substantial justice for the

administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of the process
of the court.

B Quando lex aliquid alicu concedit videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non
potest: when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be unavailable.
C. Non leguit: Absence of law upon a subject or issue

12. Do subordinate courts have inherent powers?

Ans: No. ( Unlike CPC section 151)
Subordinate courts have implied or ancillary powers.
In Sakiri Vasu vs State of UP 2007 case the Supreme court held: The
magistrates have incidental or ancillary powers under the express powers
conferred upon them and in order to make their express powers effective,
incidental or ancillary orders can be passed.
Example: If a magistrate has passed an order under section 156(3) directing
the police to conduct investigation then he cannot withdraw this order by a
subsequent order because he doesn't have the inherent power.
BUT he can pass a subsequent order for making his previous order more
effective.