Justice and Equality are embedded into the basic structure - the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Occasionally, courts come across matters which may, despite strict interpretation of the law, head in a direction that is inherently unfair. Section 482, CrPC gives the High Court inherent power to control criminal proceedings and guarantee justice.
Through this section, the High Court has attained broad powers that can be used in multiple circumstances. An example of this would be when it is found that an attempt is made to cloak a civil dispute as a criminal offence.
According to Section 482, nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. The High Court has the inherent powers to pronounce orders necessary to give effect to any order under CrPC, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to ensure justice.
Purpose of Section 482 CrPC
High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in each case the illegality was criminally apparent. This led to the addition of Section 482, CrPC through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1973. The powers of the High Court under this section are partly administrative and partly judicial.
The Supreme Court in the matter of
Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma observed that Section 482 of CrPC is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
The section acts as a reminder to High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice. The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. The jurisdiction under section 482 is discretionary. High Court can refuse to exercise the discretion if a party approaches it with malicious intent.
The Supreme Court in the matter of
RP Kapur v. The State of Punjab was dealing with a case under Section 561-A of CrPC, 1898 (which is akin to Section 482 of CrPC, 1973) and held that the power of quashing cannot be exercised in matters specifically covered by the Code and the inherent power can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
This jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The High Court ought not to embark upon an enquiry where the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.
- State of Bihar v Murad Ali Khan |
Where High Court May Exercise This Power
In the landmark case of
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and
RP Kapur v. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court gave an illustration of the cases where the High Court may be justified in using its powers to quash a case if –
- Where allegations in FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence;
- Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offence;
- Where continuation of criminal proceedings would lead to an abuse of the law;
- Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings;
- Where there is absence of requisite sanction;
- Where allegations against the accused do constitute an offence but no legal evidence is presented in support of the case. However, the High Court would not embark upon enquiry to ascertain the reliability of the evidence;
- Where allegations in the FIR only constitutes a non-cognizable offence, which can be investigated only after an order from the Magistrate,
- Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there exist sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused,
- Where there is clear mala fide intent or where malicious complaint is instituted with an ulterior motive.
- The Court reiterated that the power must be used very sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. This is not to be confused of concept of rarest of rare in death penalty cases.
In the matter of
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. The Supreme Court summarised certain broad principles with respect to High Court’s power u/s 482 of CrPC -
- Power to quash a complaint u/s 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable;
- The High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the quashing of a criminal proceeding or complaint,
- While exercising power u/s 482 and dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must hold due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
- Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with a civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
The SC in the matter of
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra was concerned with a case where the HC in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC passed an interim order that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the accused. The SC reiterated certain settled principles of law which inter alia included-
- Courts would not thwart any investigation. However, if no offence is disclosed in FIR, Court will not permit an investigation;
- Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stages;
- Inherent power does not mean arbitrary powers;
- When an investigation is in progress, courts should not go into merits of the allegations in the FIR since an FIR is not an encyclopaedia;
- Even while passing an interim order of staying further investigation pending the quashing petition, the same parameters which are applicable to quashing petitions must be applied.
The SC in the matter of
Hasmukh Lal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu was concerned with a case where there was an inordinate delay of more than 4 years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the actual complaint. The SC, while quashing the complaint, held that while inordinate delay may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however in cases such as the present where the delay was unexplained, such delay is a crucial factor to be taken into consideration as a ground for quashing a complaint.
Limitation on Section 482 of CRPC
Despite the High Court’s broad powers, the court does not hold limitless power to quash any matter without due consideration to the letter of law. The Supreme Court in the matter of
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha was concerned with a case where proceedings were quashed on the grounds that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute an offence. If an offence is disclosed, the Court must not normally interfere with an investigation; if, however, the material does not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted since the same may lead to unnecessary harassment to a party whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing.
Similarly, in the matter of
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh was concerned with a case where the HC while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of CrPC had quashed the FIR and investigation on the ground that the charges against the accused were not proved and the prosecution was malicious.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and held that at the stage of Sec. 482, the court is not required to conduct a mini trial. The question whether the charges are/would be proved is a question of trial and the High Court erred in going in detail into the allegations and the material collected during investigation.
The Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.
Conclusion
From an analysis of the application of law, the powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised by the High Court to quash a criminal complaint / FIR / criminal proceeding if the High Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The exact types of cases in which the High Court may be justified in exercising its power to quash cannot be stated precisely. They would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
In exercising the powers of Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court must be guided by the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Thank you for getting in touch! 
