DIDIGAM BIKSHAPATHI & ANR. versus STATE OF AP.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 29-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIDIGAM BIKSHAPATHI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF AP. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 
B 
(_ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.) 
Code a/Criminal Procedure. 1973: 
c 
s.482-Criminal Proceedings-For offence u/s 306 IPC--On the 
basis of suicide noteLPetition for quashing of proceedings-
Dismissed-On appeal, held: Petition rightly rejected-Case is clearly 
made out from suicide note. 
s. 482-lnherent jurisdiction-Scope and purpose of-Held: Such 
D powers are provided for administration a/justice-They are wise, but 
,.. 
it should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases. 
Maxims-Maxim 'quando lex aliauid alicui condedit, concedere 
videtur et id sine guo res ipsae esse non potest' 
E 
Proceedings were initiated against the appellants before 
Sessions Judge for offences punishable u/s 306 IPC. The deceased 
in a suicide note had held the appellants responsible for the suicide 
clearly narrating the circumstances under which he committed 
suicide. Appellants filed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking 
F quashing of the proceedings. High court dismissed the petition in view 
'r' 
of the suicide note. Hence, the present appeal. 
,. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The suicide note clearly refers to the background in 
G which the victim took the extreme step of taking away his own life 
by committing suicide. It is not a case where there is no reference to 
any act by the accused. Therefore, High Court rightly rejected the 
• 
prayer of exercise for power under Section 482 Cr.P .C. 
[Paras 11and12) [701-H; 702-A, CJ 
H 
694 
DIDIGAMBIKSHAPATHiv. STATE 
695 
-""' 
Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2005) AIR SCW 1326, A 
distinguished. 
2.1. Courts have inherent powers apart from express provisions 
oflaw which are necessary for proper discharge offunctions and 
duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds B 
-
j 
expression in Section 482 Cr.P.C. which merely recognizes 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 c 
justice on the principle "quando lex aliauid alicui concedit, concedere 
videtur et id sine guo res ipsae esse non potest'' (when the law gives 
a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot 
exist). [Para 7) [698-F, H] 
-), 
2.2. Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High D 
Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed 
before the enactment ofCr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances 
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) 
to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the 
process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It E 
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. [Para 7) (698-D, E] 
~ 
2.3. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the F 
High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether 
the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable 
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained, that is the 
function of the trial Judge nor does it function as a court of appeal 
or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has G 
'\,.. ' 
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. [Para 7 and 9) (698-H; 699-A, B; H; 7Ga-A) 
H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
2.4. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 
Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires 
great caution in its exercise. The power should be exercised 
sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The Court must be 
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on 
f 
B sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle 
a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of 
a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision 
in a case where the entire facts a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.