While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the code, the High Court would be ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether in a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial judge.

End of justice would be better served if valuable time of the court is spent in hearing those appeal s rather than entertaining petition s u/s 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure,or to delay the trial which enables to win over the witnesses or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriages of justice.

High court can exercise such Jurisdiction Suo Motu in the interests of justice,it can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as Appellate or Revision jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent Jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent Jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect incidental or supplemental powe irrespective of nature of proceedings. In matrimonial offences it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement s of matrimonial dispute s.

It is well settled that the inherent Power u/s 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and where a specific remedy is provided by the Statute. Further the Power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingaly. If these considerations are kept in mind there will be no inconsistency between section 397(2) and 482 of the Code.

To prevent abuse of process of Court , the High court in exercise of inherent Jurisdiction u/s 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or frivolous vexatious or oppressive.

In exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 High Court would not embark upon an Enquiry whether the allegation s in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.

State of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan ( 1989) Cr LJ 1005