Introduction

The term inherent means existing and inseparable from something, a permanent attribute or quality. Inherent powers are the powers which are inalienable from Courts and may be exercised by a Court to do full and complete justice between the disputed parties before it. The Court has inherent power to mould the procedure to enable it to pass such orders as the ends of justice may require.

• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Section 482 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.
• It states that 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.
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers
• This Section is silent as regards inherent powers of subordinate courts.
• The use of the word "otherwise" in this Section has the avowed effect of boundlessly broadening the boundaries of inherent powers of the High Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction.
• No limitation period has been prescribed for making an application under this Section. However, the application is to be filed within a reasonable period.

Purpose of Section 482 of CrPC

• Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised.
  • The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
  • The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
  • The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Principles for the Application of Section 482 of CrPC

• In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra (1977), the Supreme Court enumerated the following principles that would govern the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
  • That inherent power must not be resorted to, if specific provision for redressal of grievances has been given.
  • That it should be carefully used to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
  • That it should not be exercised against the express provision given in any other statute.

Exercise of Inherent Powers of High Court

• As stated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised in the following cases: -
  • Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.
  • Where the allegations in the FIR or other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the CrPC.
  • Where the unconverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence.
  • Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC.
  • Where the allegations 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 Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
  • Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance.
  • The list is not exhaustive but only illustrative in nature.
• In the following cases, the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked:
  • To quash the proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR made to the police in a cognizable case; to interfere with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable case.
  • To quash an investigation just because the FIR does not disclose any offence when investigation could be carried out on the basis of other materials.
  • To embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
  • Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only against final orders and not against interlocutory orders.
  • To order stay of arrest of accused during investigation.

Section 482 of CrPC and Bail Provisions

• The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order, after disposing a bail petition decided on merits.
• Bail cannot be granted by virtue of Section 482 CrPC.
• If bail is granted in a bailable offence, there is no provision in CrPC to cancel it. However, the High Court can cancel it by invoking inherent power on the grounds of tampering with the witness, bribing the officials, or an attempt to abscond etc.

Section 482 of CrPC and Quashing of the Proceedings

• In the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that in the following cases the inherent jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised to quash the proceedings:
  • Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings.
  • Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute the offence alleged.
  • Where either there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly failed to prove the charge.

Case Laws

• In the case of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), the Supreme Court held that a fresh investigation or re-investigation after filing of chargesheet by police can be ordered by High Court under Section 482 of CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
• In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and Ors. (2008), the Supreme Court cautioned against entertaining Section 482 CrPC petitions if the FIR remains unregistered, advocating for the pursuit of alternative remedies like approaching police officers or the Magistrate.
• In the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,(2023), the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 of CrPC would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.