Nrupalbhai Narendrabhai Shah vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 December, 2024
In Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v.
Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1805] , after considering the decisions of
this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866]
and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and other
decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the
High Court under Section 482CrPC, in paras 5, 7 and
8, it is observed and held as under : (Golconda Linga
Swamy case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy,
(2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC pp.
526-29)
"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code in a case of this nature is the exception and
not the rule. The section does not confer any new
powers on the High Court. It only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed before the
Signature Not Verified enactment of the Code. It envisages three
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:15.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 769/2022 Page 17 of 28
13:04
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely : (i) to give
effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which
would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can
provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts,
therefore, have inherent powers apart from express
provisions of law which are necessary for proper
discharge of functions and duties imposed upon
them by law. That is the doctrine which finds
expression in the section which merely recognises
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts.
All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the
absence of any express provision, as inherent in
their constitution, all such powers as are necessary
to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice on the principle quando
lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo
res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a
person anything, it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising powers under the
section, the Court does not function as a court of
appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the
section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for
the administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the Court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of the process of the Court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if
Signature Not Verified it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:15.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 769/2022 Page 18 of 28
13:04
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of
these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends
of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the Court may examine the question of
fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what
the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.