Skip to main content

10 LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF SECTION 482 CrPC.

 10 LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF SECTION 482 CrPC.

SECTION 482 defines the inherit powers of high court.

  • To give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.

  • To prevent the abuse of the process of court.

  • To otherwise secure the end of justice.

  1. Didigam Bikshapathi V. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 2SCC 403

The power possessed by the High Court U/S 480 of the Cr.P.C is very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.  

  1. Dharampal v. Ramshri AIR 1993 SC 1361

When once the High Court on certain facts refused to entertain jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C ,  a second application on the same ground cannot be entertained.

Power U/S 482 not to be exercised to grant bail

  1. Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed (2008) 1 SCC 474

The power U/S 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised by the High Court in granting bail to the accused as there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C that is to say section 439 under which the accused can approach the appropriate court for grant of bail to them

No power to review

  1. Hari singh mann v. harbhajan singh bajwa AIR 2001 SC 43:2001

There is no provision in this code authorizing the HC to review the judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of section 482 of the code.

Inherent power and subordinate court

  1. Randhir singh rana v. state AIR 1997 SC 639 (1997)

Supreme Court has again reiterated that the subordinate court has no inherent power to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State V. Mehar Singh 1974 Cr Lj 970 has been overruled.

Quashing of FIR

  1. Union Of India V. B.R. Bajaj AIR 1994 SC 1256

When the FIR made out cognizable offence, the High Court cannot quash the FIR. At the state it cannot go into the question whether any case was made out or not.

  1. S.K Belal V. State Of Orissa 1994 Cr Lj 467 

When the complaint was lodged for kidnapping of a girl who was major and who had married the accused, no prima facie case for kidnapping having been made out, the FIR and investigation can be quashed.

Quashing of Complaint

  1. Bharat ranjan v. Shyam Sunder 1994 Cr Lj 268 

When the complaint was lodged against a police officer after he had lodged FIR against the complainant and complainant did not make out any prima facie case and filed it after the long delay the HC is entitled to quash the complaint.

  1. P. C Wadhwa V. S.C Bhatia (1995) 4 SCC 244

The high court should not quash a complaint under section 73 of the Companies act on the ground that the accused was not an officer in default or that the complainant had no locus standi to lodge the complaint.







Comments

Post a Comment