Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a string of authorities to show in what circumstances inherent powers can be exercised by this Court. The first case is that of Amar Nath & others Vs. State to Haryana and others . (1) In that case the police filed a charge sheet against a number of accused persons. On perusal of that report some of the accused persons were released. The complainant then filed a revision petition against the order of discharge before the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed the same. Thereafter he filed a regular complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against all including the released accused. After examining complainant and going through the record, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint. This time the revision against that order was accepted by the Sessions Judge. Magistrate then summoned all accused. Petition under Sections 482 and 397 of the Code against that order was dismissed by the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, it held that the subsequent order of summoning the accused appellants was not an interlocutory order and, therefore. was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. But it specifically ruled that otherwise a harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 of the Code would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. It further held that it was well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject matter. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra , (2) the Supreme Court held that in case the impugned order brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely.