Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Under these circumstances, it may be better to have reference with the proviso to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Section 482 -

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.

12. On a combined reading of Sections 397 and 482, it is made crystal clear that the proviso to Section 397 and the proviso to Section 482 operate in two different fields. Section 482 confers a separate and independent power on the High Court to pass orders ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court is not precluded from treating a petition filed under Section 397 as a petition under this Section and to grant necessary relief, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. This principle is laid down in Otin Panging v. Nambor Kaman, 1991 (1) Crimes 509, 511 (Gau.)

13. It may be also appropriate to mention here that the opening words of Section 482 "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court" clearly gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this Section over those of Section 397(2) with respect to interlocutory orders and the two provisions relate to two different jurisdictions and they operate in two different fields. Even if the party has filed revision under Section 399, he can file petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even when the order is hit by Section 397(2), Cr.P.C., the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 can be exercised. This principle is laid down in Mahesh Chander Singh v. Raghunandan Prasad, 1991 Cr.LJ 72(81) (Pat.). As rightly observed in Shyam M. Sachdev v. State, 1991 CrLJ 305, 310 (Del) the High Court has wide inherent power and in appropriate cases even though the impugned order is interlocutory it has ample power to interfere with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.