Landmark Judgments of Supreme Court on Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing FIR – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – Prevent Abuse of Process of Court
1. Introduction
Section 482 CrPC is essentially an enabling provision that gives the High Court the authority to intervene in matters where the regular legal framework might not provide an adequate remedy. The powers under Section 482 are termed as inherent powers of the High Court, simply because the Court is under a fundamental obligation to deliver justice, to advance the cause of justice.
1.1 What is Section 482 CrPC?
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary 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.
Under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has considerable discretionary powers for intervention in matters which otherwise may result in injustice.
2. Powers of High Court: Section 482 CrPC
The inherent powers of the High Court under this section are not limited by any procedural law or statute, which means the Court can exercise its discretion even in cases where no specific law applies.
2.1 Power to Quash Criminal Proceedings
One of the most significant powers conferred under Section 482 is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings. This power is often used in cases where the continuation of criminal proceedings is unjust or oppressive. For example, if a person is accused of an offence based on false or insufficient evidence, the High Court can use its inherent powers to quash the case.
The power to quash proceedings is not arbitrary. The High Court exercises this power judiciously and typically when:
- The complaint or charge is baseless, frivolous, or does not disclose any offence.
- There is no sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.
- The continuance of the case would result in an abuse of the process of law, such as cases where there are delays, malice, or ulterior motives behind filing the case.
This provision acts as a check against the misuse of legal processes and helps prevent unnecessary harassment of individuals by the judicial system.
2.2 Preventing Vexatious Litigation
Section 482 of the CrPC is particularly important in dealing with vexatious and frivolous litigation. Vexatious litigation refers to legal proceedings that are initiated without sufficient grounds and are often aimed at harassing the other party. These cases not only waste judicial time but also harm the reputation and resources of those subjected to the litigation.
By empowering the High Court to intervene and quash such cases, Section 482 ensures that the justice system remains focused on genuine cases. The High Court can exercise its powers to stop proceedings that are filed with malicious intent, ensuring that the courts are not used as a tool for personal vendettas or as a means to harass innocent individuals.
2.3 Ensuring Fairness and Justice
Another critical aspect of Section 482 is its role in ensuring that justice is delivered fairly. Sometimes, due to procedural lapses or technicalities, a party may be forced into a legal battle that is both unjust and unnecessary. Section 482 empowers the High Court to intervene and prevent such scenarios, ensuring that legal proceedings do not result in wrongful harm to an individual.
For example, if a trial is progressing despite a lack of merit or if evidence suggests that a person is being unjustly accused, the High Court can step in and stop the trial to prevent further injustice. This power is essential in safeguarding the rights of individuals, especially in cases where procedural fairness is compromised.
3. Limitations and Safeguards: Section 482 CrPC
Although Section 482 grants the High Court wide discretionary powers, there are important limitations that must be considered:
(a) Judicial restraint: The High Court must exercise caution during intervention as the powers under Section 482 CrPC are meant to be used in exceptional circumstances. High Courts are generally hesitant to interfere with ongoing proceedings unless there is a clear case of abuse of process or a miscarriage of justice.
(b) Discretionary nature of the power: Since the powers under Section 482 are discretionary, they are not to be used in every case where the party may feel aggrieved. The Court has the discretion to decide whether the matter warrants intervention or not. It is important that the High Court exercises this power with a sense of responsibility, weighing the potential consequences of intervening.
(c) No interference with investigations: Section 482 does not allow for the High Court to intervene in police investigations unless there is a clear legal violation or abuse. The Court will typically refrain from interfering with the investigation process, as it is the domain of law enforcement authorities.
4. Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights
Section 482 also plays a critical role in protecting fundamental rights, particularly in cases where the legal process is being used to violate an individual’s rights. In cases where an individual’s right to liberty, dignity, or property is threatened by wrongful or malicious prosecution, the High Court can step in and take corrective action.
For example, if someone is falsely accused and the legal process continues without merit, it may lead to wrongful detention or harm to reputation or may be both. Section 482 allows the High Court to protect the individual’s rights by quashing the proceedings or taking other necessary measures to prevent further harm.
5. Supreme Court Judgments: Section 482 CrPC
Over time, Indian courts have developed a body of jurisprudence around Section 482, which has helped clarify its scope and usage.
Landmark cases have established key principles such as:
- The Court should not exercise its powers under Section 482 unless there is a clear case of abuse or injustice.
- The High Court can quash proceedings even at the pre-trial stage if it is convinced that continuing the case is a clear abuse of legal process.
- The powers under Section 482 should be used sparingly, with respect for the autonomy of lower courts, unless there is a strong reason to interfere.
5.1 Supreme Court on Categories of Cases where High Court can Quash Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
(a) The Supreme Court of India in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: –
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
(b) In State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604, 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335 the Supreme Court held as follows-
8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
5.2 Material collected during Investigation and Evidence led in Court are Crucial Factors under Section 482 CrPC
In State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, (2009) 12 SCC 466 : AIR 2009 SC 2646, the Supreme Court interpreted clause (iii) referred above and made following observations-
6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases.
The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
7. As noted. above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.l.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.l.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.l.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.
5.3 Exercise of Power under Section 482 CrPC is the Exception and not the Rule
The Supreme Court of India in M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& Ors. vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 1241 of 2004 ruled-
"Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a 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 the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code,(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. 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 by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression 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 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 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 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 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 quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
5.4 Section 482 CrPC also empowers the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice beyond the stage of FIR
In Achin Gupta vs State of Haryana & Anr., 2024 INSC 369 the Supreme Court of India held-
"20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 21. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should 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 debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The 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 the power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet."
5.5 When Civil Remedy is available
The Supreme Court of India in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 673 observed as follows-
7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
5.6 Human Liberty and Section 482 CrPC
In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 the Supreme Court of India ruled-
“67. Human liberty is a precious constitutional value, which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognises the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of CrPC “or prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. Decisions of this Court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one—and a significant—end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important : the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional rights and limitations; yet it recognised the inherent power in Section 561-A. Post Independence, the recognition by Parliament [ Section 482 CrPC, 1973] of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution. The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower courts in this country must be alive. In the present case, the High Court could not but have been cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the appellant that he was being made a target as a part of a series of occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The specific case of the appellant is that he has been targeted because his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the appellant has established a case for quashing the FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum—the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court—to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum—the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.”
5.7 Dismissal of earlier 482 Petition is not a bar to subsequent Petition
The Supreme Court of India in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors., SCC (1975) 3 706 held that dismissal of an earlier 482 petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts so justify.
6. Conclusion
Section 482 of the CrPC is a vital provision that ensures the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system. By granting the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the legal process and secure the ends of justice, it provides a mechanism for rectifying injustices and preventing misuse of the law. While the powers under Section 482 are wide, they are to be used judiciously and only in exceptional circumstances to avoid unnecessary interference with the lower courts’ functioning. The provision thus serves as a safeguard against oppression and a means to ensure fairness, justice, and the protection of fundamental rights in the criminal justice system.