The Inherent Powers of The High Courts

“To me, freedom means having the power, the inherent right, the capacity and the ability to make choices that honour who I am.”

About the Author

Abhirami G Nair, III sem LLM Commercial Law, Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, Choondy Aluva, Ernakulam

The Indian criminal justice system attempts to safeguard society from criminals and to punish them according to the law. The Court has the authority to punish the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. The Code provides detailed procedures in every element, but it lacks specific provisions to fulfil the needs of the circumstance. To fulfil these exigencies, the courts have inherent authority to issue the judgments necessary to achieve the goals of justice.

Inherent powers of the Court are dealt with in Section 482 of the 37th Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, headed ‘Miscellaneous.’ The provisions for quashing criminal proceedings are detailed in this part of the code. The CrPC states in Section 482.

“Nothing in this Code shall be construed to limit or influence the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be required to give effect to any order under this Code, to prevent abuse of any Court’s process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Indian Constitution strikes a good balance between legislative and inherent powers through stated provisions in ‘The Code.’ The two cannot coexist. The term ‘nothing’ indicates that the High Court should first consider whether the circumstance at hand is covered by the law and any term of ‘The Code’– explicitly or impliedly; if not, only inherent power shall be exercised by High Court. As a result, the inherent power should only be used in extreme circumstances, not on a regular basis. Since high courts are the highest judicial authority in every state, they have intrinsic power to strike a balance between individual rights and society interests in order to accomplish JUSTICE.

This section deals with the high court’s fundamental or distinguishing power. The clause empowers the court to issue any order necessary to ensure that justice is served. It also gives the court the authority to nullify lower court actions including FIRs. Quash means “to overthrow, abate, vacate, or make invalid,” according to Black’s law dictionary. To put it another way, quashing criminal proceedings implies stopping the legal machinery that was started by the filing of a FIR or Complaint.

Powers to quash FIRs, investigations, or other criminal actions pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it are among the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and they have far-reaching consequences. Depending on the facts of a particular case, such powers can be used to safeguard the ends of justice, prevent abuse of any court’s process, and issue any orders necessary to give effect to any order made under this Code. By using its authority under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court can always take notice of any injustice and prevent it. Any other sections of the Code do not limit or reduce these powers. Such natural abilities, however, should be used with caution.

It is well established that the inherent powers under section 482 can only be used when the litigant has exhausted all other options and the statute does not provide a specific remedy. If an effective alternative remedy exists, the High Court will not use its powers under this section, especially if the applicant has not used that remedy.

In considering cases under Section 482, the High Courts shall be guided by two goals, as set down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466]

1. .Prevent abuse of the legal system.
2. Secure the ends of justice.
3. To give effect to a Code order.

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a carbon copy of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923 added it because the High Courts were unable to provide comprehensive justice even when illegality was obvious. The inherent powers of the High Court were vested in the High Court in conformity with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as stated under Section 561 – A of the 1898 Code. The procedure for exercising inherent powers is governed by rules established by the High Court, which is given the authority to do so by the Constitution.

Despite the fact that the term “inherent powers” is frequently used in the adjudication process, there is no agreement on its entire scope.

The terms ‘inherent power,’ ‘inherent powers,’ and ‘inherent jurisdiction’ are all terms that refer to a person’s inherent ability to do something are commonly interchanged.

The concept of inherent powers, according to jurist, “is the foundation for a whole armoury of judicial powers, many of which are significant and some of which are quite extraordinary and are matter of constitutional weight”

Background Of S.482 Cr.P.C

The manifestation of authority is the power. Organized activities have existed in human communities from the dawn of time. As a legal term, “inherent power” does not have a long and continuous history.

It is the power of the court of law, as the word’s etymology suggests. Courts must have the authority to make decisions. Law is the wellspring of power. The power is conferred on the court by law, whether passed by the legislature or established by superior courts, or drawn from usage and custom, or derived from equity, or evolved from religious texts, or recognised from philosophers’ thought, or contained in maxims. However, where the law is unclear or no specific statute exists, the courts must exercise their authority. The court has this kind of power.

Even if it isn’t termed by that name, the court has the authority to deal with situations that are unusual, unexpected, and unforeseeable. The judicial process is intrinsically linked to the source of this authority, inherent power. Today, the concept of inherent powers has found its way into the realm of law.

To grasp the concept of inherent powers’ acceptability, importance, and acknowledgment in the realm of law, one must consider the many circumstances and forces that shaped it. A examination of India’s legal and constitutional history is also important when considering the concept in regard to the criminal justice system and the High Court. This includes the modern evolution of India’s judicial institutions, culminating in the establishment of the High Courts in 1862, as well as the legislative procedure that secured and preserved the High Court’s inherent power through the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1923. Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was incorporated⁴ with this amendment. This section was not changed when the Code was updated in 1955. When the Code was re-enacted in 1973, section 482 of the new Code became the repository for the earlier Code’s provision in section 561-A. The rest is recent history, which explains how the High Courts employ this power to give effect to orders issued under the Code, to prevent misuse of the court’s procedure, and to further the goals of justice. The High Courts of India have the power to quash a FIR (First Information Report). Even before the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts had this authority. It is a copy of section 561(A) of the 1898 code, which was added as Section 482 by an amendment in 1923. The part was intended as a reminder to the courts that they exist to prevent injustice done by a subordinate court.

Scope Of The Powers Of The High Court Under Sec.482 Of Cr.P.C.

The scope of the study is being focused on powers of the high court under section 482 CrPC, which are partly administrative and partly judicial.

The code of criminal procedure (Amendment) Act of 1973 inserted the section because the high courts were unable to provide comprehensive justice even when the illegality was palpable and obvious in a certain case. Nonetheless, high courts must work hard to exercise their fundamental powers without becoming erratic or arbitrary. To attain justice, inherent powers include the ability to quash a FIR, an inquiry, or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or subordinate courts. When no other options are available, these powers are used. It is not a topic in which the High Court can intervene at any moment in criminal proceedings conducted by lower courts. Only when there is a miscarriage of justice or extraordinary circumstances will the High Court intervene.

The Supreme Court has issued some recommendations in the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC 335), where the Supreme Court has provided some rules to define the legal position. When exercising inherent powers, the High Court may quash the criminal case or FIR.

The invocation of the High Court’s jurisdiction to quash a First Information Report or a criminal procedure on the grounds that the offender and the victim have reached an agreement is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction to compound an offence. The court’s competence to compound an offence is governed by the rules of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Even if the offence is not compoundable, the power to quash under Section 482 is used. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled their dispute is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no exhaustive list of principles can be formulated.

In Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr [(2017) 9 SCC 641], the Supreme Court established broad grounds for quashing First Information Reports based on numerous precedents (FIRs). It’s as follows:

The Supreme Court stated in R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab [(1960) SC 866 AIR], that a High Court may quash criminal proceedings in a subordinate criminal court

• if an offence committed by an accused obviously appears to have a legal impediment against continuation or establishment of the proceedings.
• If the claims made against the accused individual do constitute an alleged offence, but there is no legal evidence or the evidence is manifestly contradictory with the allegations made.
• When the claims provided in a FIR or complaint do not constitute the claimed offence, there is no need to consider evidence.

That is, in general, the nature and scope of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under section 482 in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, as well as the impact of court rulings on the subject.

Quashing Of First Information Report

The phrase quashing of FIR is also known as quashment. If the court determines that it is not essential to take the case further, the court will quash the proceedings and put an end to the frivolous actions. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains these powers. Section 482 corresponds to section 151 and follows the same concepts.

The honourable Supreme Court held in K. Ashoka V. N.L. Chandrashekar & Ors., [AIR 2009 SC 3288 page 3293] decided about quashing of proceedings that the High Court’s view that the allegations contained in the complaint petition are fictional is not based on any substance. Even if the complainant had a score to settle against the accused, that may not be enough to invalidate the entire criminal case, especially when the Registrar’s report has established at least a prima facie case.

The commission of offences under the Act is defined in Section 109 of the Act. There is no statutory bar to a court taking cognizance of an offence under the provisions of the IPC there. If the claims in the complaint petition or the first information report establish a case under the IPC, section 111 of the Act, which has been brought to our attention, would not be a bar to its continuation, as it is only applicable to offences committed under the said Act. As a result, the abovementioned statutory injunction cannot be extended to the commission of an offence under any other Act.

The honourable Supreme Court declared in Rishi Anand & another V. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. [AIR 2002 SC 1531 Page 153.]

and Others that criminal proceedings against the defendants should be quashed. On reviewing the complaint in this case, we find no accusations, much less of a specific type, that even slightly relate the first appellant to the claimed Section 406 violation. Any of the informant’s articles were not given to him when they married. After a brief stay in the United States following the wedding, he returned to the United States. The first respondent’s learned counsel, on the other hand, has maintained that this appellant lives with his brother in Fairfax, USA, and that he was aware of the harassment and suffering inflicted on his client. “From January 1996, Accused No. 4, in criminal conspiracy with Accused No. 4, began misbehaving with the complainant by abusing her, criminally intimidating her, kicking and throwing her belongings, and repeatedly demanding a car for their use in India, a flat, and other expensive items in dowry befitting their family’s status in India,” according to paragraph 8 of the FIR. In para 9, The complainant was allegedly assaulted viciously by Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, as well as abused and degraded. Even if these alleged crimes occurred outside of India, there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the first appellant for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal proceedings against the first appellant should have been quashed by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C

What are your options for getting your FIR Quashed ?

A legislation is enacted to benefit the general public. A law is enacted to safeguard people, particularly those who have been oppressed by the powerful. The law attempts to bridge the gap between those who dominate and those who are dominated. The laws are made with all people’s interests in mind, but there is a special attention for the weak and oppressed. There are a number of laws that plainly state that they were enacted to benefit one or two specific groups of people. There is a vast number of instances, including harijans, women, minorities, and so on. There are persons who utilise the laws that were enacted to protect them to blackmail innocent people in order to get money or celebrity. There are several cases of somebody using the law to blackmail or force someone to do something they don’t want to do. As a result, lawmakers have enacted legislation to safeguard persons who are innocent from the abuse of these laws. If the FIR, or First Information Report, filed by the police after the complainant filed a complaint is filed improperly, it might be invalidated or rendered void.

The High Court can dismiss a FIR if the court believes the person is innocent and has been wrongfully accused. If the aggrieved person has been arrested, a High Court can invalidate the FIR on the grounds that it is a false case and order the police to release him.

Cancellation Of FIR

The FIR cannot be cancelled by a police station’s officer-in-charge. The SHO does not have the authority to cancel the FIR. Even if the inquiry reveals that no crime was committed. He must submit the police report to the Magistrate for approval after completing his inquiry, as required by U/S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate accepts it, the FIR will be dismissed. It is understandable that if the Magistrate rejects it, it will not be cancelled. The Criminal Procedure Code makes no provision for the cancellation of a FIR. When a police officer concludes that no case has been made out against the accused or that the evidence is insufficient, he may release the accused on personal bond or surety under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police Officer recommends that the FIR be cancelled while sending the accused. If the Magistrate believes there is no case to answer, he may dismiss the matter. When a Magistrate dismisses a case, it is clear that the FIR is cancelled

Various Ways Through Which FIR can Be Quashed

• After the Charge Sheet is filed, the FIR is quashed.
• FIR quashed on the grounds of a Compromise
• FIR quashing in matrimonial cases
• FIR Quashing in Financing Disputes
• Second FIR quashed on petition under Section 482 CrPC
• Quashing of FIR when investigation has not begun
• Quashing FIR where cognizance not yet taken
• FIR disclosing offence
• When the power of investigation has been used in a fraudulent manner, the FIR can be quashed.
• Quashing of FIR if allegations do not constitute an offence

Why should the High Court have inherent power?

When a person is charged with a crime, it is not only a personal wrong, but also a crime against society. It has a direct impact on people’s lives and personal liberties, as well as society’s overall interests. As a result, it was prudent to entrust such authority only to superior courts and judicial minds with extensive expertise. This also supports (confirms) section 483, which states that the High Court has the authority to exercise continuous supervision over subordinate judicial magistrates.

In Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra [1978 AIR 47] the Court has observed the following principles that would govern the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

1. That inherent power must not be resorted to, if specific provision for redressal of grievances is been given.
2. That it should be carefully used to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
3. That it should not be exercised against the express provision given in any other statute. The inherent power would come into play there being no other provision in the code for the grievance redressal of the aggrieved party.

Does the Judicial Magistrate have the same inherent powers as the High Court?

The Supreme Court used the “doctrine of implied powers” in the Sakiri Vasu case [(2008) 2 SCC 409 (n 2).], It claimed that the Magistrate has sole jurisdiction to monitor the investigation, and if the investigation isn’t going well, the Magistrate can intervene suo moto.

In the case of Dharmesh Bhai Vasudev Bhai [ (2009) 576 SCC.], the question was whether a Magistrate has the ability to revoke an order given under Section 156. (3). The Apex Court ruled that once a section 156(3) order is issued, an investigation must be conducted. “The Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the Magistrate from interfering with the police’s exercise of their statutory power of inquiry, let alone ordering the withdrawal of any investigation that is intended to be conducted.” In this aspect, the Magistrate’s authority is restricted. He has no inherent power, even if he does have some. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel his order normally.”As a result, Magistrates only have inherent powers if they are granted by ‘The Code.’

To Sum Up

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 (as for instance) 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 Court to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts. When the facts of the case demand that the court employ its inherent powers to achieve real justice, the FIR may be quashed. In today’s world, numerous frivolous FIRs are made against people who are completely innocent. There are many similar FIRs filed, hence continuing the same proceeding based on the FIR is pointless. Many insurance cases are filed in the same series by those who want to receive unfair benefits and annoy others. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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. Justice Dhingra in one of his judgements said that “while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its accusation would not be sustained. This is a function of the Trial Court. Though the judicial process should not be an instrument in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances in consideration before issuing process under Section 482 lest the Section becomes and in the hands of accused persons to claim differential treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to approach higher forums. A first information report is the initial step in starting criminal proceedings against someone who is accused of committing a crime. The officer-in-charge of the police station has the authority under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to record information submitted to him orally or in writing relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. FIR essentially puts the criminal law in action and allows the police to begin an investigation to gather evidence to show the accused’s guilt. It is extremely difficult for a layperson to comprehend legal jargon, and expecting a poor or illiterate individual to follow a lengthy procedure to have their case recorded is unreasonable. Even a literate person who is unaware of his rights when the FIR is refused may be unable to continue the procedure. Apart from that, a lack of resources may lead to a refusal to investigate other viable options.