2022 (5) TMI 1577 - HC - Indian Laws

Invocation of power of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - failing to secure the Petitioner s right to an adequate representation under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution read with Delhi Prison Rules 2018 - HELD THAT - It is well established principle of law that the High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae - to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. A seven-Judge Bench in the case of P. RAMACHANDRA RAO VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA 2002 (4) TMI 962 - SUPREME COURT laid down the principles for exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where the Court was convinced that such exercise was necessary in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed The power is wide and if judiciously and consciously exercised can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial inquiry or proceedings. The position of law that is crystallised in light of the aforementioned judgments is that jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases. Hence what is only required to be seen is whether there has been an abuse of process or that the interest of justice requires the exercise of the jurisdiction. Having delineated the scope of the powers of the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 and applying the same to the case at hand it is evident that there is no such relief that can be granted as is being prayed for. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned ASJ - the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to give special treatment to the petitioner by facilitating physical meetings for him with his counsel. Inherent powers of the Court are meant to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court however the petitioner under the garb of the liberty to approach the Court under the said provision is attempting to commit gross misuse of process. The provision of the Code that is meant to secure the ends of justice cannot be otherwise subverted to circumvent the scheme of the Code. In light of the aforesaid this Court does not find any cogent reason or any substantial ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant the relief that is being sought by the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of Ld. ASJ seeking physical meetings with advocate while in custody at Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by Ld. ASJ, Southeast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 7th December 2021 and requested physical meetings with his lawyers outside jail premises while in custody. The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to secure his right to adequate representation under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, read with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

2. Exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The High Court analyzed the scope of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The provision allows the High Court to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the court's process, or secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that these powers should be used judiciously and only in extraordinary cases where judicial discretion is warranted based on the facts of the case.

3. Interpretation of Section 482 through judicial precedents.

The Court referred to various judicial precedents to interpret Section 482. It cited the principles laid down in cases like P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka and Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. to highlight that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution. The Court also emphasized that the power should be used to prevent abuse of the court process and secure justice.

4. Dismissal of the petition and reasons for the decision.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit. The Court held that the petitioner's request for physical meetings with his counsel at the Mediation Centre could not be granted as it did not align with the purpose of preventing abuse of the court's process. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary powers of the Court should not be used to provide special treatment to the petitioner, especially in cases involving economic offenses that harm society and the nation's economy. The Court concluded that there was no substantial ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and grant the relief sought by the petitioner.