MARY ANGEL AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 13-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MARY ANGEL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
MAY 13, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal 'Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-lnherent powers of 
High Court-Scope of-Power to impose costs-Maxims-Maxim-expressio 
unius est exclusio a/terius-Applicability. 
" 
A charge sheet was filed against Al to A6 u/s 498A, 406, 420, 315 
Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A3 to 
A6, appellants were discharged by the Sessions Court holding that they 
had not demanded dowry and there was no material to show that 
D medicine for abortion was administered on their instigation. In Revision 
filed by the complainant, the High Court set aside the order of discharge 
and in pursuance of that order, Sessions Judge framed charges against 
appellants also. The appellants filed Criminal Revision alleging that 
th~re was no prima facie case for framing of charges against them, 
without disclosing that revision against the order of non-framing charges 
E was allowed earlier by the High Court holding that there was suffic1ent 
material for framing of charges. The High Court dismissing the petition 
while observing that the proceeding had been dragged on for 8 years 
and th~t appellants had not allowed the Sessions Court to comply with 
the directions of the High C.ourt to complete the trial as expeditiously as 
possible, imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on each of the appellants, to be paid 
F to· the com~lainant, wife of Al. This appeal had been filed challenging 
the said order of the High Court. 
The appellants submitted that in Criminal cases High Court has no 
jurisdiction to impose costs except as provided u/s 148(3), 342 & 359 of the 
G Criminal Procedure Code empowering the High Court to impose costs and 
that inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised contrary to the said 
provisions. 
The respondent submitted that while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 
482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to impose costs 
H to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends 
594 
t-
;..-
-
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
595 
of justice and that in the instant case the High Court rightly exercised its A 
~ . 
inherent jurisdiction and imposed costs to be paid to the cruelly treated wife 
considering that the accused prevented the Sessions Court from proceeding 
with the case and by suppressing the previous order passed by the High 
Court, approached the Court for quashing and setting aside the charges 
framed against them. 
B 
The question raised for consideration of this Court was whether the 
High Court had such jurisdiction to impose costs while exercising its inherent 
powers. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD : \.1. While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, 
Court has power to pass 'such order' (not inconsistent with any provision 
of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give 
effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the 
D 
process of any Court or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This 
extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a 
judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or can be . 
exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes. [609-D] 
1.2. Section 482 Cr. P.C. stands independently from other provisions 
of the Code and it expressly saves inherent powers of the High Court. E 
Therefore, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to 
secure the ends of justice, the High Court is empowered to pass 'such order' 
which may include order to pay costs to the informant (complainant) and the 
language of the section does not in terms place any fetter. This power is not 
conditioned or controlled by any other section nor is curtailed by any F 
provisions which empower the court to award costs. This jurisdiction is of 
exceptional nature and is to be exercised in exceptional cases for achieving 
the purpose stated in the section. Secondly, costs could be either for the 
purpose stated in the section. Secondly, costs could be either for the purpose 
of meeting the expenses of the litigation as it can be exemplary to prevent G 
the abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice or giving 
.,,, 
effect to any order passed under the Code. 1600-B-E] 
1.3 There is no negative provision that except the cases for which the 
costs could be awarded under different sections of the Code, High 

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