LexSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. v. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO DECEMBER 7, 2005 B [ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482-lnherent powers of High Court-Single Judge of High C Court quashed FIR in a case against accused during investigation holding that ingredients of the offences alleged were not in existence-Correctness of-Held: Exercise of the power under S. 482 is the exception and not the rule-It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give affect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) D to prevent abuse of the process of court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice-S. 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short- circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death-Powers under S. 482 are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in exercise-When the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the E acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial-The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused-Hence, High Court not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case and the charge sheet. F The respondent filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court for quashing of FIR and connected proceedings registered against him in a case in which investigation was not complete. The High Court quashed the proceedings holding that on perusal of the statements recorded during investigation it was clear that the G ingredients of the offences alleged were not in existence, and it would be an abuse of the process of Court and may lead to gross miscarriage of justice if the proceedings were continued. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court H 548 - STATE OF ORISSA v. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO 549 HELD: I. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal A Procedure, 1973 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 the Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of B 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. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them C by law. That is the doctrine which finds expressio!l 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 aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res D ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the Section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or r-;:vision. 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 E 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 F 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 quashin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.