In this article, we have to discuss section 482 CrPC 1973 which is very important for discussing the topic of inherent powers of the High Court. Back in time, the High court could be able to serve justice and exercise its powers in the most effective way. The essential features of the powers are-
(1) It allows the court to pass any other within its jurisdiction.
(2) It ensures that justice is to be served with everyone and no one tried without justice.
(3) It can quash the lower court proceeding or the subordinate court to it.
Procedure to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court regulated by the rules framed by the High Court itself and the power to make such rules is conferred on the High Court by the constitution of India.
SECTION 482 Cr.P.C 1973
Saving of inherent powers of the 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 any process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
POWERS UNDER 482
The High Court has a wide variety of powers within itself and the powers are as follows-
(1) The High Court has the power to quash the F.I.R, any investigation and any criminal proceeding before any High Court or any other subordinate court.
(2) The High Court has the power to secure justice to everyone who comes before the High Court and also providing justice in such a way the abuse of the law cannot take place before the High Court.
(3) It has the power to prevent the miscarriage of justice by applying section 482 Cr.P.C 1973.
(4) It should be used with great mind and with great caution to effectively use it.
CASE- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab –  In this case three important things are discussed for the inherent powers of the High Court:
1) Prevent the abuse of the criminal law system of our country- In the case of Sankatha Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh , it was held that the High Court should not do something in its powers which prohibits the court from doing something.
2) The ultimate aspect is to provide end to end justice to every individual who is involved in the respected case.
3) The power of the High Court to give effect in providing quality verdicts in every matter respectively (to secure end justice)- In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra  laid down 3 principles:
- Power is not to be restored if there is any specific section in the code for the grievances.
It should be exercised sparingly and applied with caution to prevent abuse of justice.
It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code.
NEED OF SECTION 482 Cr.P.C 1973
In this, the powers of the High Court are half administrative and half judicial and this was added in the year 1923 before such year the High Court couldn’t be able to exercise powers and ensure justice to all.
CASE- The state of Karnataka v. Muniswamy–  In this case it was held that there are 3 circumstances in performing powers of inherent jurisdiction that to give effect to code of the criminal procedure, to prevent abuse of the law system and to secure end to end justice to all individuals.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court went on to state that, “The section is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice.
LIMITATION OF SECTION 482 Cr.P.C 1973
According to section 482 Cr.P.C, the inherent jurisdiction of the court is very wide in its exercise and should be applied great mind and with caution to prevent the abuse of the law. The court invokes this section it must be done specifically to the test which is laid down in the section itself.
CASE- Dr Monica Kumar & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh –  In this case it was held that the section 482 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised ex debito justitiae (as a matter of right) in a way it ensures real and substantial justice and the administration of justice is why courts exist.
CASE– the State of Bihar and another v K.J.D Singh –  In this it was held that by exercising the inherent powers High Court cannot interfere in that matter when it has been concluded. It is so because powers are to provide end justice and not just cutting the procedure arbitrarily.
It is to be concluded that the powers are of wide variety hence it should be applied with great mind and caution in respect to providing end justice, justice to everyone and ultimately to prevent the abuse of the criminal law system.
 Narinder Singh v State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466.
 Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1208.
 Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.
 1977 SCR (3) 113.
 Dr Monica Kumar & Anr vs State of U. P. & Ors on 27 May 2008.
 1993 (41) BLJR 1401.
This blog is written by Shivam, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
Some more of Shivam BLOGs,
- ACID ATTACK: A NEW FACET OF GENDER-BASED CRIME
- SECTION 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
- DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE
- TRIAL AND TYPES OF TRIAL
- CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.