2003 (4) TMI 600 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extent and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Powers of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Quashing of FIRs in matrimonial disputes under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent and Ambit of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. These powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers available only where no express power is available to the High Court to do a particular thing and where the express power does not negate the existence of such inherent power. The exercise of these powers is necessary for giving effect to an order under the Code, for preventing abuse of the process of the court, or for otherwise securing the ends of justice.

The judgment references several landmark cases to elucidate the scope and ambit of these powers:
- Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar (1964CriLJ1): The High Court has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice.
- Emperor v. Sukh Dev (AIR 1930 Lah. 465): The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority, the Court must have the power to prevent that abuse.
- State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim ([1964]2SCR363): Section 482 CrPC confers no new jurisdiction or power on the High Court; it merely safeguards all existing inherent powers necessary to secure the ends of justice.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977CriLJ1125): The saving of the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of the Court is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, namely, that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

The judgment emphasizes that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, but this power must be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution.

2. Powers of the High Court in Exercise of Jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India:

Article 226 of the Constitution confers very wide discretionary powers on the High Courts to issue appropriate writs. These powers are meant for doing justice and correcting injustice. The judgment references several landmark cases to elucidate the scope and ambit of these powers:
- M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana ([1985]1SCR940): The discretionary remedies under Article 226 are for doing justice and correcting injustice.
- Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao ([1953]4SCR1144) and Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Rajrana ([1950]1SCR566): Articles 32 and 226 have been incorporated in the Constitution primarily to ensure effective means of enforcing constitutional rights, particularly fundamental rights.
- T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa ([1955]1SCR250): The High Court can issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases and in an appropriate manner, so long as it keeps the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India & Ors ([1981]1SCR206): The power of judicial review conferred by Articles 32 and 226 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.

The judgment underscores that the powers under Article 226 are extremely wide and cannot be taken away by any law, legislative enactment, or even by the amendment of the Constitution.

3. Quashing of FIRs in Matrimonial Disputes under Sections 498A and 406 IPC:

The judgment discusses the approach of the Court in relation to matrimonial disputes, particularly under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. It references several cases where the High Court has quashed FIRs in such disputes to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice:
- B.S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (JT 2003 (3) 277): The Supreme Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
- State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992CriLJ527): The Supreme Court laid down broad parameters or categories in which it would be permissible for the Court to quash the proceedings.

The judgment concludes that the High Court has extremely wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The powers of the learned Single Judges under Section 482 and Article 226 to quash the proceedings cannot be disputed or questioned, but those powers have to be exercised in consonance with the well-recognized principles laid down in a catena of cases by the Supreme Court.