LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

CS Pooja (Company Secretary)     04 November 2009

Inherent powers of the Court under CrPC

What are the inherent powers of the Court under Cr.P.C and when are they used...


 31 Replies

PRAVEEN CHOUDHARY (SERVICE)     04 November 2009

inherent powers under section 482 of the cr.p.c. used by the high court only

1to prevent abuse process of the court  or

2 to give effect to any order under this code or

3  to secure the ends of justice.

it is well setteled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is avialable to the litigant  and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. it cannot be used if it is inconsisitant with specific provision provided under this code.

see the case laws

kavita v/s state 2000 cr lj 315

b.s. joshi v/s/  state of haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386

1 Like

Sanjeev Kuchhal (Publishers)     04 November 2009

 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 exercised sparingly and with caution.

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 as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

 In Bhajan Lal's case, Court held;

"(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Where the uncontroverted 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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."

2 Like

K. Rajendra Prakash (Advocate)     04 November 2009

Inherent powers under section 482 of the cr.p.c. used by the high courts to prevent abuse of process of the court  or

 to secure the ends of justice.

It is well setteled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is avialable.

1 Like

bhupender sharma (head)     05 November 2009

Ms. Pooja under extraneous circumstances the high court consider it to appropriate to invoke the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C . and the court is of the considered opinion that there is abuse of the process of law. It is extensively well defined in the Bhajan lal Case of the year1999.   

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     05 November 2009

 Right. But I know a case where the trial magistrate has used this power to revised the order of his predecessor magistrate.

Sanjeev Kuchhal (Publishers)     05 November 2009

Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 available to High Court only. Inherent power u/s 482 not available with the subordinate criminal courts.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     05 November 2009

 Not available yet exercising it.

Remedy: Go to High Court and become a pauper. That is our law. Nothing will happen to the magistrate who did it.

K. Rajendra Prakash (Advocate)     07 November 2009

Inherent power u/s 482 is not available to the subordinate criminal courts.  Any order without jurisdiction is a nullity that is to say will not have any legal sanctity.

Kamal Grover (Advocate High Court Chandigarh M:09814110005 email:adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com)     07 November 2009

High Court has very wide power u/s 482 called as inherint power and it can be used anytime whenever court feels any injustice is done and did not cover any other law.

The detail has already explain by our coleagues.



Anil Agrawal (Retired)     07 November 2009

 Who will nullify the order unless one goes to HC?

K. Rajendra Prakash (Advocate)     07 November 2009

Hon'ble High Court

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     07 November 2009

 That is the point. Go to the High Court. 

I have misused the power. Do whatever law permits you. Go to the High Court. Let me narrate an interesting case.

A deputy registrar of coop societies passed an order asking the member to pay to the society certain due which were in dispute and legally not payable. The law is that he has to pay 50% of the amount before moving the court. The officer said:

I know I have passed an illegal order. You go to court against my order but first pay the amount. 

Let us be sacrificed at the alter of law!


Sanjeev Kuchhal (Publishers)     07 November 2009

Very right Anilji. Even I remember a incident where a senior officer dismissed the employee and said that he knows that its a illegal order and would be set aside by Court of law. But besides spending time, energy and money the trauma which will be faced by the employee will be a good punishment.

I strongly believe that the while setting side the order which are nullity and wrong on the face of record, higher costs should be imposed and paid to the applicant in such cases.


Anil Agrawal (Retired)     07 November 2009

 I against reproduce:

HC fines itself for wrong judgment

To Pay Up Rs 15K For Dismissing Lower Court Judge


Ahmedabad: In a curious case of judicial self-introspection, the Gujarat high court has imposed a penalty on itself for misjudging a case. 

    A division bench headed by Chief Justice K S Radhakrishnan on Friday imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 on the high court for neglecting judicial tradition in a case that led to the dismissal of a lower court judge. “Judges are at times poor judges of judges, especially in judicial administration,’’ the divi
sion bench observed while hearing S J Pathak, who was first suspended in 1999 and dismissed seven years later for granting bail to an accused in a serious case without considering settled principles of law. 

    Pathak faced two departmental inquiries. The report was then placed before a disciplinary committee of Justice B J Shethna and Justice D K Trivedi (both now retired), who “tentatively’’ held that charges were proved against the judge. It was not supported by any reasoning. 

    Since the conclusions were “tentative’’, the report was place before another disciplinary committee of Justice N G Nandi and Justice M S Shah. This committee in 2003 exonerated Pathak of all charges. In wake of conflicting conclusions, the report 
was placed before the HC for perusal 

of all judges. In a chamber meeting, all judges did not accept the conclu
sion arrived at by Justice Nandi and Justice Shah and decided to entrust the case with Justice Shethna again. In 2006, Justice Shethna held that all charges against Pathak were proved and recommended his dismissal. Pathak filed a petition and the bench of Justice Radhakrishnan and Justice A S Dave pulled up the HC for referring the case to Justice Shethna for re-consideration, particularly when Pathak had expressed apprehension that he was biased. 

    The Chief Justice ordered return of Pathak to service immediately and made observations against the HC’s decision of sending the case back to Justice Shethna, who had “prejudged’’ the case, which led to a decision that was “vitiated by bias and liable to be set aside’’.
If the magistrate can be dismissed for granting bail to a man who was not eligible, what about the HC judge who dismissed him and now reinstated. Magistrate is found guilty for wrong order. No body can touch HC Judge.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register