No other provision of CrPC can limit inherent powers of high court u/S 482 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

"...this is also the intent of the legislature while enacting the aforesaid provisions as no bar has been put on the inherent powers of the High Courts and this provision has been put in the Miscellaneous Chapter in the CrPC 1973," Court observed. 

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that any provision of CrPC cannot said to be an alternative remedy in reference with the provisions of Section 482 of CrPC. "Even no provision of CrPC can limit the inherent powers of the high court," said the court.

The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh said that it is apparent from the bare reading of the provisions of section 482 of CrPC that the same starts with obstante clause i.e. "Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court".

Court added that time and again the apex court has interpreted the meaning of the inherent powers given under Section 482 of CrPC and it has been settled that the high court can exercise the inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of the court for giving effect to the orders under the Code and to secure the ends of justice, though the same should be exercised sparingly. 

"...but, at the same time, it is also noticeable that no bar provided in any Judgment with respect of invoking inherent powers, exercising jurisdiction under 482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Courts and infact, this is also the intent of the legislature while enacting the aforesaid provisions as no bar has been put on the inherent powers of the High Courts and this provision has been put in the Miscellaneous Chapter in the Cr.P.C. 1973," court underscored. 

The single judge bench said that the very starting words of the provision says 'Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court; which clearly shows that no provision of CrPC can be read overriding the provisions of Section 482 of CrPC.

Referring to case of Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of UP(2013) court noted that though the apex court held that the inherent power of the high court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance but, while referring to the case of Prabhu Chawla Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (2016), court highlighted that the apex court also held that inherent powers of the high court under section 482 of CrPC cannot be barred by the alternative remedy provided under the CrPC.

Court observed thus while examining the contention raised by the opposite party in an application filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a summoning order issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda under Section 319 CrPC.

The argument of the opposite party was that the present application was not maintainable as the impugned order had been passed while invoking the jurisdiction under section 319 of CrPC and it was not an interlocutory order. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the impugned order was revisable and therefore invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC was barred in the present matter as the inherent power can be invoked when there is no overt or express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or otherwise no other alternative remedy is available.

Relying on the judgment in Mohit alias Sonu and Another Versus State of U.P. and Another (2013), the counsel for the opposite party submitted that the Apex Court has reiterated that if an order is not interlocutory, the same can be assailed in the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the remedy of revision is available to the applicant and invoking inherent powers in such conditions is barred, thus the instant application may be dismissed on this ground alone.

However, the Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the ratio of the judgment in Mohit alias Sonu & Another is not a good law. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & and Anr. and said that the ratio of the judgment in the Mohit alias Sonu case was overruled in it. 

Apex Court has held that Section 482 of CrPC begins with non-obstante clause and therefore, in case of abuse of process of law, inherent power can be invoked and there is no limitation except the self-restraining, thus, the summoning order, which was passed under section 319 of CrPC can very well be challenged while invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the counsel for the applicant submitted. 

Case facts in brief:

The present applicant had assailed a summoning order dated April 6, 2023 passed under section 319 of CrPC by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda. Against the applicant, a case had been lodged with the allegation that one Rajveer @ Ranu was murdered by his brother, wherein the accused persons namely, Awadh Kishor Tiwari, Ram Kishor, Ashok Kumar Singh(present applicant) and Lalit Singh were named and after a thorough investigation of the matter was done by the Investigating Officer and the Chargesheet was filed against the accused persons namely, Awadh Kishor and Kamla and the final report was submitted. 

However, the name of the present applicant was expunged at the time of investigation itself.

Seeking direction to quash the summoning order, the applicant argued that the trial proceeded and chargesheet was filed and summons was issued against the other co-accused persons and when the statements of three witnesses were recorded before the trial court, an application under section 319 of CrPC was filed and an objection was also submitted by the present applicant.

He added that the Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 06-04-2023 had put the statements of the prosecution witnesses in verbatim in the order and no finding had been recorded to the degree of satisfaction that there was a much stronger case available.

However, the opposite party opposed the application to quash the summoning order.

The high court allowed the plea and set aside the impugned summoning order. Court also remitted back the matter to the trial court concerned, to take a fresh decision, after considering the applicant's application under section 319 of CrPC.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh v State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Another