The inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
can be exercised to quash proceedings in an appropriate case, either to prevent
the abuse of the court process or to secure the ends of justice. 'Abuse of the
process of court' refers to proceedings that lack bona fides and are frivolous,
vexatious, or oppressive. In simpler terms, it means the improper use of legal
processes with the aim of obtaining an unfair advantage or undeserved benefit.
Under Section 482 of the CrPC, read with Article 226 of the Constitution, the
High Court has the power to strike down criminal proceedings or prosecutions
based on a compromise or amicable settlement between the parties.
However, this
power is subject to certain limitations, as indicated or illustrated by a
Five-Judge Bench of the Court in the case of
Kunwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
(2007) 3 AICLR (Ph & Hry) 818. The Supreme Court also approved this approach in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 4 AICLR (SC) 551.
Regarding quashing proceedings, the availability of an alternative remedy
through criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC alone cannot be a
sufficient ground to dismiss an application under Section 482. At this stage,
the High Court cannot meticulously analyze the evidence or anticipate whether it
will lead to conviction or acquittal. The purpose is not to determine the truth
of the allegations but to assess whether a cognizable offense has been prima
facie made out based on the allegations.
The guilt or innocence of the accused
can only be established after a full-fledged trial. It is not proper for the
High Court to interfere with the proceedings and quash the final report
submitted by the police. In cases where the FIR or criminal complaint
allegations do not prima facie disclose a triable offense, the High Court has
inherent power to intervene at the threshold or intermediate stage of the trial.
However, this extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, considering
whether, even accepting all allegations made by the prosecution, no offense is
disclosed. The case of
Ravinder, Branch Manager vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2015) 2 AICLR (AP) 452 emphasizes this principle.
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email:
[email protected], Ph No: +9051244073
Please Drop Your Comments