Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.53 seconds)Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mostt. Simrikhia vs Smt. Dolley Mukherjee @ Smt. ... on 2 March, 1990
11. A plain reading of Section 482 Cr.P.C. showcases that nothing in the
Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High
Court. However, the embargo that lies under Section 362 Cr.P.C. which
prohibits a Court from altering or reviewing its judgement or final order
disposing of a case, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, applies
to Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well. The Supreme Court has time and again held
that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override
the bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. In the case of Simrikhia v.
Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437, the Supreme Court had observed as
follows:
Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981
362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal
[(1981) 1 SCC 500 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 188] , that the
inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for
doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code.
The law is therefore clear that the inherent power
cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be
done on account of the bar under other provisions of
the Code. The court is not empowered to review its
own decision under the purported exercise of inherent
power. We find that the impugned order in this case is
in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a
reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court
has grievously erred in doing so. Even on merits, we do
not find any compelling reasons to quash the
proceedings at that stage."
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 27 March, 2012
12. The purpose of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is that once a Court delivers a
judgement or a final order disposing of a case, that judgement becomes
functus officio, and it cannot be reconsidered or modified [See also Sunil
Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 398]. The inherent power of the
Court cannot be exercised for doing something that is specifically prohibited
by the Cr.P.C. as doing so would be a violation of the law laid down by the
CRL. M.C. 878/2021 Page 13 of 24
Parliament and the precedents of the Supreme Court. Further, Section 482
Cr.P.C. does not confer any new powers on the High Court; it only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed before the commencement of the
Code.
State Of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa & Anr on 16 January, 2002
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 abuse. It would be an abuse of
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 it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts 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."
Arun Shankar Shukla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 23 July, 1999
13. Therefore, while it is true that Section 482 Cr.P.C. does confer wide
powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent the abuse of process of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but the expressions
"abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer
unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court. The alleged abuse of the process of
law or the ends of justice can only be secured in accordance with law and
not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary
powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section
CRL. M.C. 878/2021 Page 15 of 24
482 Cr.P.C. in cases where there is no express provision empowering the
High Court to achieve the said object. It cannot be invoked in respect of any
matter covered by specific provisions of Cr.P.C. or if its exercise would
infringe any specific provision of the Cr.P.C. [See Arun Shukla v. State of
U.P., (1999) 6 SCC 146].