LexMANJULA SINHA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_/ MANJULA SINHA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. JULY 11, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482-Jurisdiction under-Scope and exercise of-Proceedings uls 498 A and 406 !PC in two cases-Petition for quashing of FIR-Dismissal of-Jn first case plea that in view of FIR na C case made out agains! thl appellant-Jn second case charges framed-Held: The powers undet the provision are wide and hence to be exercised sparingly-It should be exercised ex debito justitiae-ln the first case as no case made out uls 498A, proceedings were liable to be quashed-However allegations as regards s. 406 existing, hence power u/s 482 could not be D exercised-Jn the second case since the charges have been framed, question of quashing of FIR does not arise-P~nal Code, 1860-ss. 498 A and 406. Jurisdiction-Inherent Jurisdiction-Purpose-Exercise of-When- Discussed High Court-Exercise of its jurisdiction-Held: High Court being higheSt court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the facts are incomplete and hazy, when evidence has not been collected and produced before Court and when issues involved are of magnitude. Maxim- 'qando lex a liquid alicui' concedit, concedens videtur et id - · sine quo res ipsae esse non potest '. E F In Criminal Appeal No. 860/2007, on the basis of a complaint proceedings u/ss. 498A and 406 IPC were initiated. Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before High Court for quashing the proceedings. High Court rejected G the same. In Criminal Appeal No. 86112007 in proceeding u/ss. 498A and 406 IPC, chargesheet had been filed. A Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for 301 H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. A quashing of FIR. The same was dismissed by High Court. B Hence the present appeals. Partly allowing Appeal No. 860/2007 and dismissing the Appeal No. 861/ 2007, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three 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 C 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 pr~visions of law which are necessary for proper discharge D of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section 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 justice on the principle "quando lex ., E aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). tpara 8] (305-C, D, E] 1.2. While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the F 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 just~tiae 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 G 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. H (Para 8) (305-F, G, HJ )-- + - MAN JU LA SINHA v. ST ATE OF U .P. 303 J° •· 1.3 Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.