Exercise of inherent powers for quashing the proceedings at initial stage is permitted only where the allegations made in complaint or FIR even if taken at their face value or accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie point to any offence being committed or where uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or complaint and evidence relied in support of same do not point to any offence being committed against the accused, or allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that on their basis no prudent person could have reached a just conclusion that there were grounds enough in proceeding against accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provisions of Code or any other statute to institute and continue criminal proceedings or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly actuated with mala fide and has been initiated in a malicious manner with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on accused and in order to spite him owing to private and personal grudge.
Running of parallel criminal proceedings and consideration of all those facts which can be considered by Magistrate who is seized of proceedings by virtue of complaint filed in his court is not permitted through this section. It is not for the Chandigarh High Court to examine the sufficiency of reasons given by Magistrate while issuing process, after application of his mind. It is not the province of the Chandigarh High Court in exercise of inherent powers under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to enter into the merits and demerits of the case.
Court is not to go into truthfulness of allegations in proceedings under S. 482 of Code, once a complaint discloses commission of an offence, the veracity of allegations is not to be tested in such proceedings rather it has to be tested in backdrop of evidence which is yet to come on record. Dismissal of appeal against order of trial Court under S. 340 refusing to make complaint against respondent. Revision under S. 342 is not permissible. However S. 341(2) does not disallow exercise of inherent jurisdiction of Chandigarh High Court under S. 482. It could be invoked for securing ends of justice as well as preventing abuse of process of court.
In case the question involved is the jurisdiction of Court to secure the ends of justice, Chandigarh High Court can interfere in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 as if, as a matter of fact the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the complainant and if the magistrate proceeds with the complaint it will mean an abuse of the Court procedure. An order if found to be illegal and without jurisdiction even after it has spent its force can be set aside. Court under S. 482 is empowered to restore status quo ante.
An accused person can issue limitation in Chandigarh High Court in proceedings under S. 482 and same would be done as soon as possible and if raised should be adjudicated upon as preliminary issue and it cannot also be stated that cognizance having been taken place in one Court and thereafter case having been transferred to another Court and therefore issue of limitation can be raised not only at earliest point of time before trial Court but also even before Chandigarh High Court adjudicates matter in full. Recalling of order. Absence of one of the parties on date of hearing due to fault of counsel’s clerk as he somehow missed the matter in the cause list. Case heard on merits and order passed. Petitioner absentee not vigilant for sometime thereafter. Subsequent application for recalling of said order by invoking inherent powers will not be maintainable.
Offences cannot be compounded under S. 482 if they are not compoundable in view of specific bar under S. 320(9). Matrimonial offence. Court is duty bound to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
One of the modes having been chosen and exhausted in case there are two modes of invoking jurisdiction of Chandigarh High Court then it would be improper to grant relief in other set or proceedings in respect of same order therefore when jurisdiction under S. 482 is invoked and exhausted entertainment of writ petition would mean abuse of Court process. Power of granting bail to a convicted person must stem from the provisions of Section 389 rather than from Section 482.
In case charge-sheet filed by police under various sections of Penal Code, one of the offences was under S. 376 which was exclusively triable by Sessions Court, at such instance order by Magistrate discharging accused by going into merits even for prima facie satisfaction, hence order had lead to miscarriage of justice; same was liable to be quashed. The inherent powers should not be exercised when there is no miscarriage of justice.
Where taking note of provisions of S. 125(4), wife, a distitate, should not have been legally denied interim maintenance, then refusing maintenance on grounds that she had refused to live with husband without any sufficient cause within meaning of S. 125(4) would be miscarriage of justice which should be rectified while exercising inherent power under s. 482 of Code. The Chandigarh High Court has, with respect to its general jurisdiction over all the criminal Courts inferior to it, inherent power under this section to give effect to any order of any such courts under the Code, and to prevent the abuse of Court process, or otherwise to ensure justice.
The expressions “ends of justice” and “to prevent abuse of process of any Court” are intended to work both in case an innocent person is in justifiably subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex facie well merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold without permitting the material in support of it. No provision in the Cr.P.C shall be considered to affect or limit the inherent powers of the Chandigarh High Court to make such orders as may be imperative to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Inherent powers of High court should be invoked to interfere with the impugned order where there is abuse of the process of the Court and the ends of justice are likely to be deviated by merely issuing a show cause notice to the accused. Thus where the trial court had simply issued a show cause notice to the accused irrespective of the fact that there had been prima facie material before it related to the registered trademarks and copy rights of the complainant and the averment that the accused is in possession of garments using the complainant’s trademarks and also that an injunction order has been passed against the accused in that regard by Chandigarh High Court.
For more information, contact