Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
The American Baptist Foreign ... vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Dehradun And ... on 20 September, 2016 cites

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

The scope of Section 482 CrPC has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in that regard has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (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. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced 8 before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1931 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next