The inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be exercised to quash proceedings in an appropriate case, either to prevent the abuse of the court process or to secure the ends of justice. 'Abuse of the process of court' refers to proceedings that lack bona fides and are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In simpler terms, it means the improper use of legal processes with the aim of obtaining an unfair advantage or undeserved benefit.

Under Section 482 of the CrPC, read with Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has the power to strike down criminal proceedings or prosecutions based on a compromise or amicable settlement between the parties.

However, this power is subject to certain limitations, as indicated or illustrated by a Five-Judge Bench of the Court in the case of Kunwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2007) 3 AICLR (Ph & Hry) 818. The Supreme Court also approved this approach in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 4 AICLR (SC) 551.

Regarding quashing proceedings, the availability of an alternative remedy through criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC alone cannot be a sufficient ground to dismiss an application under Section 482. At this stage, the High Court cannot meticulously analyze the evidence or anticipate whether it will lead to conviction or acquittal. The purpose is not to determine the truth of the allegations but to assess whether a cognizable offense has been prima facie made out based on the allegations.

The guilt or innocence of the accused can only be established after a full-fledged trial. It is not proper for the High Court to interfere with the proceedings and quash the final report submitted by the police. In cases where the FIR or criminal complaint allegations do not prima facie disclose a triable offense, the High Court has inherent power to intervene at the threshold or intermediate stage of the trial.

However, this extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, considering whether, even accepting all allegations made by the prosecution, no offense is disclosed. The case of Ravinder, Branch Manager vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 2 AICLR (AP) 452 emphasizes this principle.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073