Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
8. High Court under section 561-A of the Code (sec. 482 of
the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to
make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This
jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to seek
quashing of FIR and investigation by the police or any
criminal proceedings pending in any Court if it is shown to
the satisfaction of the Court that such proceedings is the
abuse of process of that Court or tends to cause
miscarriage of justice or the quashing is otherwise required
to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction of the High
Court is vast indeed but this jurisdiction is to be exercised
cautiously, carefully and sparingly and the Court has not to
function as a Court of appeal or revision. Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, has given
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power can be used either to prevent the abuse of process
of Court or to secure the ends of justice. The categories
are:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Khyali Ram And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 February, 1971
In Khyali Ram's case, as the order
rendered by the High Court would show, child was
removed from the custody of the mother and High Court
was of the view that offence of kidnapping under section
363 IPC is not made out. Situation in this case, however,
is not only different but peculiar and raises a serious
question about the conduct of an Army Officer, who after
submitting himself to legal process as long as it suited him
has violated law when it suited him otherwise. Petitioner
secured presence of the mother and the child in the court
by invoking jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section
100 of the Code. In his presence the mother and the child
were produced before the Magistrate on 12.01.2012 and
both of them were kept on Supardari of one K.P. Dubey
with a direction to appear before the court on
14.01.2012. Petitioner has admitted his presence before
in the Court of learned Magistrate on 12.01.2012 in para
31 of his petition. All of them came in the court on
14.01.2012. On 14.01.2012, the child as a matter of fact
10
was not in the custody of his mother only but was in
custodia legis, having been kept on sapurdari by order of
the Magistrate.
1