For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

There are certain situations which may not be covered by the express legal formulations of the Cr PC but in these circumstances also justice must be done. Every High Court has inherent power to act as ex debito justitiae. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as it deemed fit to prevent the abuse of process of the court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must exercise inherent powers after taking into consideration the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when the inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked.[2]

The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers in both civil and criminal matters have been designed to achieve a salutary public purpose and a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Supreme Court  and High Courts in various judgements discussed in this paper further added that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to the laws made by parliament.

The High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to decide these issues. Section 482 of the Cr PC provides as follows:

“482. 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 unnder this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The plain reading of the Section itself provides that it has been enacted to protect the inherent powers of the High Courts. This Section only deals with all the existing inherent powers possessed by High Court in order to secure ends of justice and it does not confer any new power on the High Courts.[3] The nature and scope of this Section is very wide but it does not extend to those matters which are not inherent within High Court’s jurisdiction. Every High Court in a State is the highest Court exercising criminal jurisdiction and has a power to decide those issues which may probably arise and where there is no legislative enactment regarding those issues.

In the case of R.P Kapoor v. State of Punjab[4] Supreme Court penned down the categories of cases where inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised and proceedings pending for adjudication of matters by subordinate courts can be quashed. The Supreme Court further on scope of Section 482 of the Cr PC held as follows:

“There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice.

(i) If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. 

(ii) Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. 

(iii) A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A 1898 Code (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and' contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 561-A (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point.” 

 In R. P Kapoor’s case Supreme Court briefly discussed that the power to quash the proceeding can be exercised even with regard to the cases pending in the subordinate courts for adjudication. In this case Supreme Court followed and applied even the more rigid criteria regarding quashing of first information report and subsequent police investigations before filing of a charge sheet. Although these parameters are not exhaustive, these may be summarised as follows:

1. First information report can be quashed if it discloses no reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence.[5]

2. When the nature of evidence collected during investigation discloses no commission of a cognizable offence at all.[6]

3. The continuation of that investigation amounts to abuse of power by police; hence requires court’s interference in the ends of justice.[7]

4. When the first information report or subsequent investigation asserts to raise a reasonable suspicion of a commission of cognizable offence; the High Court can quash such investigation if it is satisfied that the investigation has been conducted mala fide.[8]

The same matter was again discussed in detail in Smt Nagama v. Veeranna Shivalingapa Konjalgi[9] and it was held that in the following situations order of the magistrate issuing process against the accused can be set aside or quashed:

1.    Where the averments made in the complaint on the statements of the witnesses does not make out any case against the accused person or the complainant hides essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused.[10]

2. When allegations made in a complaint are absurd and baseless and there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused person.[11]

3. Where magistrate exercises issuance of process in a capricious manner and having been based on evidence which is not admissible or relevant to the facts in issue.[12]

4.  Where the complaint is based on fundamental legal defects i.e a complaint filed by incompetent legal authority in an arbitrary manner.[13]

In the case of  State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy[14] contours of Section 482 of Cr PC has been outlined by Supreme Court when it exercises its inherent jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has held that the saving of the High Court’s inherent powers in both civil and criminal matters have been designed to achieve a salutary public purpose and a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Supreme Court further added that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to the laws made by parliament.

The power of High Court under Section 482 to quash a prosecution in case of abuse of the process of the court does not mean to hold a parallel trial.[15] In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [16] the Supreme Court in the background of the interpretation of various provisions of the Cr PC under Chapter XIV and of the legal principles laid down in various decisions relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr PC regarding quashing of FIR on complaint. The Supreme Court has given the following categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice:

1. Where a criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive i.e. to harass the accused due to private and personal grudge.

2. Where there is express bar incorporated in any of the provisions of the Code under which criminal proceeding has been commenced or where there is a legal provision in the Code, providing effective remedy to redress the grievances of the accused.

3. Where there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the allegations mentioned in the FIR are absurd, vague and without any legal back ground.

4.  Where the FIR registered do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence but comprises only a non cognizable offence and investigation cannot be permitted to police officer without an order of a magistrate as provided by Section 155 (2) of the Cr PC.

5.  Where contents of an FIR or the complaint do not constitute the commission of any offence at all or make out the case against the accused persons.

In the case of Janata Dal v. H.S Chaudhry and Others [17] the Supreme Court discussed extensively the nature and scope of inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Cr PC and held that the inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Cr PC should not be exercised in a lackadaisical manner to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Supreme Court further observed that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts were extremely incomplete and hazy.

In the case of Buridi Vanajakshmi v. Buridi Venkata Satya Varaha Prasad Gangadhar Rao & Anr.[18] it has been held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that under Hindu Marriage Act for the dispute as to paternity of child, DNA test can be ordered by the High Court under its inherent powers as codified under Section 482 of the Cr PC. Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the primary duty of a court is to see that truth is arrived at and the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law governing the field does not contain any express provision empowering the court to issue a direction upon a party to a matrimonial proceedings to compel a person to submit himself or herself for DNA examination. It has been also observed that DNA examination can resolve all misunderstanding between the parties and perhaps may bring the parties to terms. The court further added that it does not preclude a court from invoking its inherent jurisdiction to pass such order so as to secure the ends of justice.

In the case of Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P [19] the Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot while exercising its inherent powers to do something which is expressly prohibited under the Cr PC. The powers invested under Section 482 are both administrative and judicial.[20] In the case of Jamshed v. State of U.P [21]  the Allahabad High Court considered the jurisdiction of the criminal court to compel a blood sample for DNA analysis and has held in that context that Section 53 of the Cr PC refers only to examinations conducted at the request of police officer, but if such a power is given to a police officer, the court should have a wider power for doing justice in criminal cases. Thus High Court has an inherent power in terms of Section 482 of the Cr PC to pass all orders 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.

The Indian Legislators are wise enough to confer a wider power on the High Court to take additional evidence and to make further inquiries or investigations to secure the ends of justice. This Section also deemed to have given ancillary powers to the High Court to make such orders or directions and to take such steps as may be mandatory for the purposes of collections and preservation of DNA evidence. Although there are certain provisions in the Cr PC regarding DNA identification but these provisions are not exhaustive. There are certain grey areas which need to be addressed by courts.  In scientific investigation there are number of instances where there is no legal provision and courts often hesitate to interfere during those investigations i.e in the case of Chandan Panalal Jaiswal v. State of Gujarat [22] it was prayed by the accused that during the time of his collection of DNA material an independent DNA expert must be allowed to be appointed in that DNA testing process so that he could give independent opinion about their procedures adopted. The accused further prayed that the DNA test was very sensitive and the test being a scientific test it should be conducted with utmost care and caution because every potential misstep might render its utility futile and that could result into serious prejudice to the accused. It was also contended by the accused that they should be at least permitted to observe the process of extracting the samples from the body of the accused and the process of the examination which was to be taken place in forensic science laboratory, at least outside of the window glass. The court straightaway turned down the prayer of the accused and held as follows:

“the demand for an appointment of an observer is not found acceptable as it may demoralize the forensic scientist who is an  independent authority and not working either under police or under the guidance or supervision of police authorities. The role of FSL can very well be appreciated in the light of the scheme of Section 293 Cr PC and other relevant provisions under which these laboratories are functioning. It is also relevant to note that appointment of an observer may also lead to contamination including leakage of confidential report and even some information and aspects which would be otherwise are required to be kept secret. The potential defence witness whether ever could be permitted to enter the laboratory is also a question and this proposed invasion whether can create any hurdle or embargo in performing the analysis also would be a crucial aspect, if such private expert starts non cooperation. If the accused persons have any question or doubt as to the method adopted by the forensic science experts, then while examining such expert during the trial the accused positively can bring their own expert who can assist the counsel.

The court can reject the request made of such a nature but I am afraid, if the relief as prayed for is granted, it would amount to interference by court in the investigation. The courts have no role to play during the investigation nor to regulate the same, which is an accepted proposition of law.”

In this case court wrongfully stated that court has no role during investigations; the High Courts are empowered under Section 482 of Cr PC to pass any order or to issue any directions in dissemination of justice. It is worthwhile to mention here that in India without a specific forensic legislation it will be difficult for courts and investigating agencies to handle scientific investigations at every situation. The High Courts must exercise its inherent powers to issue appropriate orders to advance justice during collection of forensic evidence.

1. Sharma K.K., Psychology and Abnormal Human Beings (Sublime Publications, Jaipur, India, 2000). 2. Rachels J., The Elements of Moral Philosophy (2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York 1993). 3. Sharma K.K., Psychology and Abnormal Human Beings (Sublime Publications, Jaipur, India, 2000). 4. Shorts, Edwin & Claire M. Thande, Civil Liberties (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1998). 5. Shukla, V.N., Constitution of India, (Eastern Book Co., Allahabad, 6thedn., 2005). 6. Swarup, Jagdish, Constitution of India (Modern Law Publication, New Delhi, 12th edn., 2012).

1. Shailender Malik, The Code of Criminal Procedure 709(Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 18th edn., 2013).
2. Superintendent and Remembrencer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1002.
3. State of U.P v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703.
4. AIR 1960 SC 866.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. AIR 1976 SC 1947.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. AIR 1977 SC 1489.
15. Dharampal & Ors v. Smt Ramshri & Ors, AIR 1993 SC 112.
16. (1991) 2 SCJ 350.
17. (1992) 4 SCC 305.
18. AIR 2010 AP 172.
19. AIR 1962 SC 1208.
20. Ibid.
21. 1976 Cri LJ 1680 (All).
22. 2004 Cri LJ 2992 (Guj).
23. Mohd. Mushtaq Hussain v. State of U.P, AIR 1994 All 695.
24. Shailender Malik, The Code of Criminal Procedure 709(Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 18th edn., 2013).