LexRENU KUMARI versus SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1006 A RENU KUMAR! v. 1 SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. ' (Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2008) 8 MARCH 3, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] . .,, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482: c Exercise of powers under - Scope - Appellant, wife of Respondent No.3, filed complaint under s.498A /PC and ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Police registered FIR - Charge sheet filed - Respondents filed application for discharge in terms of s. 239 CrPC which was rejected - D Revision application dismissed -Respondents filed petition under s. 482 CrPC - High Court allowed the same holding that • the proceedings had been maliciously instituted for wreaking + vengeance on the accused-respondents due to private and personal grudge - Whether parameters for exercise of E ;urisdiction under s.482 CrPC had not been kept in view by the High Court- Held, Yes - Exercise of power under s.482 CrPC in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule - It was not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in light of all probabilities in order to determine F whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such '( premise conclude that the proceedings were to be quashed - When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then ma/a tides of the informant would be of secondary importance - It is the material collected during G the investigation and evidence led in the Court which would decide the fate of the accused person - Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 & 4. Appellant, wife of Respondent No.3, filed complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under H 1006 RENU KUMARI v. SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. 1007 s.498A, IPC and ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, A 1- 1961. The police registered FIR and charge sheet was filed. Respondents filed application for discharge in terms of s.239 CrPC which was rejected. Revision application thereagainst being dismissed by the Sessions Judge, · Respondents filed Criminal Misc.Petition under s.482 B . CrPC. High Court allowed the same holding that the ,. 1 .proceedings had been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused- respondents due to private and personal grudge. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the C parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC had not been kept in view by the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Exercise of power under s.482 CrPC in a o • case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The +- .. < section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of CrPC. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction E may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to 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. F No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the G section which merely recognises 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 wro:ig in H 1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A the course of administration of justice on the principle of "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine 1 quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers under the section, the court .( B does not function as a court of appeal or revision. 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 c debito justitiae to do real and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.