1995 (1) TMI 418 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable to recall or cancel a non-bailable warrant in view of the specific provision under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.
2. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. The interplay between Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. regarding non-bailable warrants.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The primary issue was whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall or cancel non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrates/trial courts, given the specific provision under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners argued that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and can be exercised notwithstanding the specific provisions under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. They cited various Supreme Court rulings to support their contention that the inherent powers of the High Court are preserved and can be exercised to render justice even in the absence of specific provisions in the Code.

2. Scope and Ambit of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners' counsel cited several Supreme Court rulings to emphasize the wide scope of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For instance, in *Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi) Administration*, the Supreme Court noted that "nothing in the Code, not even Section 397 can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482." Similarly, in *V.C. Shukla v. State*, the Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the High Court is to pass orders ex-debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power is not to be exercised capriciously but in appropriate cases to do real and substantial justice. The Supreme Court in *Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra* and other cases laid down principles that the inherent power should not be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance, and it should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

3. Interplay between Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.:
The Public Prosecutor argued that Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. provides a specific remedy for the cancellation of non-bailable warrants, and hence, petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. The Public Prosecutor cited the ruling in *P.A. Saleem v. State* where it was held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be used to recall warrants when there is a specific provision under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The court observed that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when no other remedy is available.

Judgment:
The court concluded that while the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and preserved, they should be exercised with self-imposed restraint. The court emphasized that the inherent power should not be used to circumvent specific provisions like Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., which provides a remedy for the cancellation of non-bailable warrants. The court directed the petitioners to file appropriate petitions for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants before the concerned Magistrates/trial courts under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. within three weeks. The Magistrates/trial courts were directed to dispose of these petitions on merits and in accordance with law. The court also allowed the petitioners to file these petitions without personally appearing before the court to avoid immediate remand to judicial custody.

Conclusion:
The petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were dismissed with directions to the petitioners to seek remedy under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. before the concerned courts. The court reiterated the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but emphasized the need for self-imposed restraint and adherence to specific provisions in the Code.