Defend yourself in Corrupt & Shambolic Indian Judicial System

CREDIT: Orginal Source Ordinarily, in Criminal law, there are two ways by which the machinery of law is set into motion against any person – (1) By registering FIR before Police u/s 154 or by making Application u/s 156(3) to the Magistrate, thereby Magistrate directing the Police to register the FIR, investigate the offence and file Police Report in a time bound manner; (2) By making Complaint before the concerned Magistrates Court u/s 200. COMING TO LEGAL OPTIONS: 1. If false, frivolous and baseless FIR is registered, then a Petition / Application u/s 482, may be filed before the High Court, for the quashing of said FIR, on the ground that (a) “acts” and “omission” attributed towards the accused person in the FIR does not constitute any offence; or (b) No incidence of offence as alleged in the FIR has happened; or (c) the FIR contains “bare allegation” without attributing whatsoever “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences. 2. If false, frivolous and baseless Complaint is filed u/s 200 before the Magistrates Court, then, the aggrieved person, on the similar grounds as stated hereinabove, may prefer – (a) a Revision Application u/s 397 before Sessions Court, thereby challenging and quashing of the said Summons / Warrant issued in pursuant to said Complaint; or (b) a Revision Application u/s 401 before High Court, thereby challenging and quashing of the said Summons / Warrant; or (c) an Application u/s 482 before High Court, thereby challenging and quashing of the said Summons / Warrant, in the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. (Note 1) 3. If the Chargesheet is filed and the case is committed to Sessions Court, for the trial of offence charged with, then, before the framing of charges (Note 2) by the Sessions Judge, the accused person may file a “Discharge Application” u/s 227, thereby seeking his discharge of the offence charged with, on the ground that (a) “there is no prima facie evidence or there is no any incriminating material” against the accused is found in the chargesheet with respect to the offence charged with; or (b) “material / evidences” on record are “grossly insufficient” to proceed to trial against the accused and on the basis of said evidences, the conviction of the accused cannot be secured by the Prosecution (c) the evidences are “inadmissible” and / or are “Irrelevant” within the meaning of Indian Evidence Act, for convicting the accused. 4. If the Chargesheet / Complaint is filed in the Magistrates Court, for the trial of “Warrant cases”, then, before the framing of charges (Note 2) by the Magistrate, the accused person may file a “Discharge Application” u/s 239 / 245, thereby seeking his discharge of the offence charged with, on the same grounds as stated hereinbefore. 5. However, where the person has filed a Petition before HC for quashing of FIR, as stated hereinbefore, and during the pendency of said Petition, the Police files Chargesheet, then, the prayers of the said Petition, with the leave of the HC, may be amended, and quashing of the Chargesheet, on the grounds stated hereinbefore, may be sought in the said Petition. However, where, the HC decides on “merit” and rejects the Petition, then, the said accused person cannot file “Discharge Application” as provided under Sections 227, 239 and 245. 6. An Application u/s 482 can be maintained (i) even after the filing of Chargesheet by the Police; (ii) even after the commencement of trial and during the trial, provided the ingredients of Section 482 must be substantially satisfied so as to claim relief under Section 482. (Note 3) 7. In a trial before Sessions Court, when the Sessions Judge rejects the “Discharge Application”, and proceeds to frame charges against the accused person and take evidences of prosecution witnesses, thereafter Application may be made u/s 232 for the acquittal of the accused, on the grounds of “no offence is made out” against the accused. 8. In a trial before Magistrates Court, in Summons cases, when the Magistrate proceeds to take evidences of prosecution witnesses, thereafter, Application may be made u/s 258 for the acquittal / discharge of the accused, on the grounds of “no offence is made out” against the accused. 9. In a trial before Magistrates Court, in Summons cases, at any time before judgment is pronounced, the Complainant may be persuaded to withdraw his “false, frivolous, vexatious, baseless, dishonest” Complaint u/s 257. 10. At any time before judgment is pronounced, by virtue of Section 321, the Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the trial Court, may withdraw the prosecution. Therefore, a formal request may be made to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution, in the light of the fact that “no offence is made out against the accused person”. 11. To put an end to the agony of the trial and accusation, the Complainant and the innocent accused person, at any time during the trial and even at the stage of Appeal, may “compound certain offences” as provided u/s 320 and such compounding of offences has the effect of acquittal of the accused person. 12. Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed in concluding the “guilt of the accused person”. Thus, whenever, any of the “prescribed procedure” is not “duly followed and complied with”, and where such non compliance, expressly or by necessary implication, frustrate or weaken the case of the accused person, the accused person may prefer a Writ Petition in the High Court or even in the Supreme Court, thereby challenging such “act of omission” alleging that his “liberty is jeopardized” due to “non compliance to the procedure established by law”. Scrupulous adherence to process of law – (2007) 2 SCC 258, Para 12. 13. By virtue of Parliamentary command enshrined in Section 464, the Sessions Court or the High Court, in the Appeal or in Revision, if comes to the “finding” that due to “omission to frame, or absence of, or error in framing Charges”, “failure of justice” has in fact occasioned, the Sessions Court or the High Court, may direct the retrial of the accused person; or where the Sessions Court or the High Court comes to the “finding” that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, the Court “shall” quash the conviction. 14. By virtue of Parliamentary command enshrined in Section 465, any error, omission Or irregularity in respect of (a) complaint, (b) summons, (c) warrant, (d) proclamation, (e) order, (f) judgment or (g) other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, prejudices the accused person “seriously” due to such error, omission or irregularity , the Sessions Court or the High Court, in Appeal or in Revision, may reverse the sentence which is passed against the accused person. 15. Where, the innocent is however convicted, the “innocent convicted person”, may invoke the Inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 for the quashing of such conviction. The necessary “ingredients” of Section 482 however must be substantially shown to the High Court for exercising such extra-ordinary powers. 16. Similarly, where, the innocent is however convicted, the “innocent convicted person”, may file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, having regard to the facts of the case and the injustice that has occasioned, in the exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, for doing “complete justice”, may quash the conviction. The said SLP may also be filed where the High Court has refused the relief u/s 482, as aforesaid. 17. Where, the innocent is however convicted, the “innocent convicted person”, depending on the offence convicted of, may make an Application to the State Govt / Central Govt, for the suspension or reduction of sentence of punishment and the said appropriate Govt, by virtue of Section 432, may suspend or reduce the sentence. Note 1: In Complaints filed u/s 200 before the Magistrates Court, the accused persons named in the Complaint has no right of representation before the Magistrates Court and only when the said Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issue Summons / Warrant against the persons named in the said Complaint, the right accrues in favour of the accused person to file Revision etc. However, the accused person named in such Complaints, very cautiously, may consider, approaching the Advocate / Counsel of the Complainant, with formal or informal request, apprising them with the true facts of the case and telling them to present the true facts of the case before the Court and tell them that the Advocate / Counsel should not mislead the Court merely on the instructions of his Client. In our law books, it is said that the Advocates / Counsels are “Officers of the Court” though they may be representing and advocating the cause of their Client but they have “ultimate duty towards Court” to present the true facts of the case before the Court. Note 2: “Framing of Charges” by the Court is a very critical stage of the trial which reflects the, meticulous or weak, investigation made by the Police and the “relevant and admissible” evidences, if any, collected by the Police against each of the accused persons and thus the scrupulous framing of charges will directly reflect the involvement or absence of involvement of the accused person. Therefore, accused persons should press for “strict” adherence to Sections 211, 212, 213 and 214 while framing of charges by the Trial Court. As a matter of fact, in my view, where “Charges cannot be framed” with sufficient clarity as contemplated u/s 211, 212, 213 and 214, the accused should be “Discharged”. I also feel that a scrupulous framing of charges gives a proper direction to the trial, for, it will help the Prosecution to know what is required to be proved and in fact will greatly assist the defence in dislodging the “story” of the prosecution. Note 3: In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarised some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (SCR p. 393) (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Gajendragadkar, J. who spoke for the Court in Kapur’s case observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by Section 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Abasaheb Homname versus State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 766 OF 2007, in their Full Bench Judgment, in Para 5.2 observed as – the power of the court to annul or overthrow, which is an exception to let the normal procedure of law specified in the Code be followed, should be exercised sparingly and subject to the satisfaction of the condition precedents to exercise of such power. The doctrine of inherent power is the basic support for exercise of such power. The court inherently would be couched with such power to do justice and to ensure that basic rule of law is not frustrated. Wherever the court has to implement orders, to prevent the abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice, it is entitled to take recourse to its inherent powers including that of quashing. Power of the court to quash, thus, is an inbuilt power to do justice and in fact, is a power of great substance which categorically finds its place in the provisions of section 482 of the Code. Power to quash is one of the powers where the court would be empowered to quash the FIR or even a criminal proceeding in furtherance thereto; In Para 7.9 observed – Recourse to inherent powers under section 482 would be permissible even in non-compoundable offences for quashing an FIR and/or criminal proceedings and this power of the court is not controlled and/or moderated by any of the provisions of the Code including Section 320 of the Code; In Para 2.5, the Court observed as – A bare reading of the above provision indicates that the Legislature intentionally worded this provision widely and, thus, necessarily would have larger impact and ramifications on the procedural law governing enquiry, investigation and trial in criminal cases. It is a well-known concept that law is not static and it develops and varies according to the progress of time and the need of society. Similarly, the provision of section 482 in regard to the inherent powers of the Court is not meant to be static and diverse views have been expressed by different High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. In Para 3.16, the Court observed as – In a very recent case titled as Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed, (2008) 1 SCC 474, the Supreme Court took the view that a Procedural Code, however, exhaustive, cannot expressly provide for all time to come against all the cases or points that may possibly arise, and in order that justice may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must in proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or for the purpose of carrying out the other provisions of the Code. It is a well established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In Para 5.6, the Court observed as – Catena of judgments of the Supreme Court can be referred to where the Supreme Court upheld and/or permitted exercise of inherent powers for quashing proceedings. The scope of power under Section 482 was held to be vast to prevent abuse of process of law by inferior Courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. The Courts have also taken the view that mere nomenclature of a petition would not matter and even in a petition under Article 226, the Court could take recourse to the provisions of Section 482 of the Code. The legal position was stated to be well settled that when prosecution is sought to be quashed at the earliest stage, the test would have to be applied by the Court as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made prima facie, establish the offence. It is for the Courts to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case and would justify quashing of the proceedings may be at the preliminary stage. In Para 5.14, the Court observed as – When the Court has to consider whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied, (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Applying these two tests, the Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Damani vs. S.K. Sinha and others, (2001) 5 SCC 156, where the accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, held that the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings was not sustainable. The Supreme Court also relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi, (1996) 6 SCC 263 and held that on cumulative reading of the complaint, offence was prima facie established and it was not expedient and in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. The Court also indicated that no special circumstances existed so as to justify the quashing of the proceedings. In Para 5.15, the Court said – In the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court, while referring to all its earlier judgments, restated the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash complaints and criminal proceedings and reiterated the principles as follows:- “(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c ) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” In Para 5.19, the Court said – Upon plain analysis of the principles of law, stated supra, it can safely be concluded that the court can exercise its inherent power vested in it for quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings free of limitations but with caution, circumspection and sparingly, with reference to the facts and circumstances and the special features of a given case. The language of this provision invites liberal construction keeping in view the objects sought to be achieved that no person should be permitted to abuse the process of court or process of law. The penal code is intended to protect society against crime but it certainly, should not be permitted to be used as an instrument to frustrate the very purpose by incorrectly or illegally implicating other persons and thus, abusing the process of court and law both. Power to quash is the discretion of the court and may be exercised sparingly but there will be no occasion for the court to impose on itself unspecified restrictions or limitations in exercise of such powers. Power to quash is an ancillary or essential aspect of inherent powers of the court. The definition of the ‘court’ under section 20 of the Indian Penal Code is not restricted and it includes, obviously, the appellate and revisional court. When a court is exercising its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, it is not divested of its inherent powers. In a given case, the revision petition or even a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be treated as a petition under section 482 in the discretion of the court and upon satisfaction of the prescribed tests. As already stated above, nomenclature of the petition is not a determinative factor. Essentially, all the courts exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure could always have the inherent power and could pass such order which may be necessary to achieve the ends of any of the three objects stated in section 482. In Para 7.9, the Court observed as – Recourse to inherent powers under section 482 would be permissible even in non-compoundable offences for quashing an FIR and/or criminal proceedings and this power of the court is not controlled and/or moderated by any of the provisions of the Code including Section 320 of the Code. In Para 7.10 THE Hon’ble Court said – We have held that the inherent powers should be used in cases falling in either of the three categories stated in section 482 itself. This wide power must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The inherent powers of the Court of competent jurisdiction can be invoked for quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings but the Court would pass such orders only if the principles laid down in judicial dicta are satisfied and either of the three objects stated in Section 482 of the Code are achieved by exercise of such power. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a strait-jacket formula regulating exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, particularly in relation to quashing, as it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. No precise and inflexible guidelines or strait-jacket formula or catalogue of the circumstances in which power should or should not be exercised, may be laid down. Still, while recapitulating the enunciated principles in the judgments of the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana vs. BhajanLal, AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii) Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. , (2006) 6 SCC 736, (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar, (2006) 7 SCC 188, (iv) Popular Muthiah vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, (v) Sanapareddy Maheedhar vs. State of A.P., 2008 AIR SCW 11, and (vi) Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2008 decided on 21st February, 2008), and other well accepted canons of criminal jurisprudence, we state the principles as under:- 1. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice very sparingly and with circumspection; 2. Inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 3. Power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unlimited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent, where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law; 4. The inherent power of the High Court can be invoked in respect of matters covered by the provisions of the Code unless there is specific provision to redress the grievance of the aggrieved party; 5. Inherent power under section 482 of the Code overrides provisions of the Code but evidently cannot be exercised in violation/contravention of a statutory provision or power created under any other enactment; 6. Power under Section 482 to quash proceeding should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution; 7. Such power should be used only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice; 8. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised in following three circumstances. (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr. P.C. (ii)to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii)to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 9. Inherent power should be exercised to do the right and undo a wrong; 10. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if the initiation/continuation of such proceeding amounts to ‘abuse of the process’ of court or quashing of the proceeding would otherwise serve the ends of justice’; 11. While exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, High Court must refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to concerned petitioner on account of investigation of FIR or complaint; `12. While exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must all the while be conscious of the fact that its exercise of such power will not result in miscarriage of justice and will not encourage those accused to repeat the crimes; 13. The inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of the Code, cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code; 14. For the purpose of quashing, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint; 15. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should not be such as to harm legitimate expectation of the people and the society, that the persons committing offence are expeditiously brought to trial and if found guilty are adequately punished; 16. Inherent powers may be used only when reasonably necessary for the court to be able to function and courts may not exercise inherent powers merely because their use would be convenient or desirable; 17. The exercise of inherent power would be necessary whenever it is just or equitable and it should be to ensure observance of the due process of law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression and to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial; and 18. While passing an order quashing FIR or criminal proceedings, as the case may be, it may be appropriate for the Court to examine the impact of such an order upon the system of administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. This, of course, is not a determinative factor but only a relevant consideration. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 clearly stated the principle that in exercise of its wholesome power, the High Court was entitled to quash a proceeding as this power is to ensure a salutary public purpose that Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harasssment or persecution. The HC has powers to stay criminal proceedings in any subordinate court and such power can be exercised even in cases in which motion for stay had not been first made to the trial court. Shaikh Davud versus Yusuf – (1954) Travan 1326. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial, if he considers the charge to be groundless. But that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the HC under section 482 of CrPC or under Article 227 of the COI to have the proceedings quashed against him and still he must go the agony of criminal trial. Pepsi Foods Ltd versus Special Judicial Magistrate – AIR 1998 SC 128. That the trial would be an exercise in futility, an innocent person would not be allowed to be subjected to the hardship and humiliation of full dress trial, even though on any reckoning, it would never succeed. The expression “ends of justice” and “to prevent the abuse of the process of the court”, used in this section, are intended to work both ways, either when an innocent person is unjustifiably subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie well merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold, without allowing the material in support of it to see the light of the day. PNB Finance versus Gita Kriplani, ITO New Delhi – (1985) 1 Crimes 1094, 1100 (Del). In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, AIR 2008 SC 251 while referring to the law, both on scope and ambit of court’s power under section 482 and the principles governing for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court said that every 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 abuse of the process of the court. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice and if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. In that case, the Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings taken out under sections 420, 120-B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. This section was enacted to emphasize the fact that the HC has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and therefore if the HC feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then HC will entertain the Application and make the necessary orders even though the application is not one contemplated by the code. State of Bombay versus Nilkanth Shripad Bhave – AIR 1954 Bom 65. HC can revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same by virtue of its inherent powers reserved under this section. Raj Narain (1959) a All 441 (FB); AIR 1963 Mys 326. The SC has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of HC given by section 482 – The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. To prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code. Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra – AIR 1978 SC 47; Lalit Mohan Mandal versus Dehayendra Nath Chaterjee – AIR 1982 SC 785. The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – 1989 CrLJ 1967 (Pat). In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Rohtagi [1983 (1) SCR 884 at p. 890]: AIR 1983 SC 67 at p. 70, it is reiterated: “It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or substracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under S. 482 of the present Code.” In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, AIR 1989 SC 1 held as under: In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that- there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to- find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant , or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]” (emphasis supplied) Under 482, the HC is to see that there is no abuse of the process of the court. If there is any inordinate delay or laches in the prosecution without any progress in the same, it would amount to harassment of the petitioner warranting interference under 482. 1991 CrLJ 970 at page 972 (Bom) Only in cases where the HC finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or an order was not correct, the HC may be justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 482. Ved Prakash versus State of UP 2003 CrLJ 2080 at page 2081 (All) Nagawwa versus Veeranna – AIR 1976 SC 1947 – principle laid down as circumstances under which process issued by the Magistrate could be set aside or quashed under section 482 of CrPC. In the recent case of State of Punjab versus Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar – 2012 AIR SCW 207 – Para 27 – If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it; or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of the court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order, for the reason, that in such eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of section 362 CrPC would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. 1970 CrLJ 378; 1985 CrLJ 23; AIR 1987 Raj 83 (FB); AIR 1972 SC 1300; AIR 1981 SC 1156; (2009) 2 SCC 703; AIR 2011 SC 1232. Para 31: Inherent powers, however, can be exercised by the High court only when there are change of circumstances in the case and in the changed circumstances the High court can, in the exercise of inherent powers, pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. (1990) 2 SCC 437 : AIR 1990 SC 1605. Para 33: Inherent powers cannot be resorted if there is specific provision in the CrPC for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party; or where alternative remedy is available. Para 40: Inherent powers can be exercised only to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. However, said powers can be exercised provided there is no prohibition under the provisions of CrPC for passing such an order; and there is no provision under which the aggrieved party can seek redressal of its grievance. Application under 482 can be entertained only when the proceedings are pending in the subordinate court. In case, the proceedings have attained finality, the inherent powers cannot be exercised. The party aggrieved may approach the Appellate/Revisional forum. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if injustice is done to a party for example – a clear mandatory provision of law is overlooked or where different accused in the same case are being treated differently by the subordinate court. State of Haryana versus Bhajanlal – Guidelines – AIR 1992 SC 604. Note 4: Warrant cases are those cases where the punishment prescribed for the offence alleged to have been committed is more than two years. Note 5: All Sections referred here pertains to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. POST SCRIPT: 1. As a matter of fact, in law, in Summons cases, the “Charges are not framed against the accused person”, and where the accused person does not plead guilty, the Magistrate at once proceeds to take evidence of the prosecution. The argument advanced by the “State” is that (a) there is imprisonment only but for two years in Summons cases and therefore the accused person shall not have the right of “framing of charges”; (b) There should be speedy disposal of cases. I believe that an imprisonment even for two days is sufficient to jeopardize & frustrate the dignity of an innocent man and he becomes “suspicious” in the eyes of the Society. In my view, the said “classification” of accused persons is irrational and this is gross and naked discrimination, which seriously prejudices the fate of the accused person and he is deprived of a valuable “process of law” and Article 14 of the Constitution of India is directly attracted. 2. REMEDIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE AGGRIEVED PERSON WHO IS VICTIM OF FALSE FIR / COMPLAINT / MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: a) An application u/s 156(3) or complaint u/s 200, to Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate, against those Police officers who have “knowingly” registered false FIR / or have falsely arrested / or if are falsely prosecuting the case, alleging therein your complaint that said Police officer have committed the offence defined under section 218 and 220 of IPC, 1860. b) It is a criminal offence under section 182 and 211 of IPC, 1860 to knowingly register a false complaint against any person. In such cases the innocent person cannot register FIR or make complaint to Magistrates court against those persons who have filed false complaint. In such cases, as far as offence under Section 182 is concerned, a complaint can be made to the Police officer to whom false complaint has been made, or complaint can be made to a higher authority about the filing of said false complaint, and the concerned Police officer or the higher authority is empowered to file the case against the person in the Magistrates Court who has made false complaint to the Police. As far as offence under Section 211 is concerned, a Complaint u/s 200 or Application u/s 156(3) can be made before the Magistrates court. However, aforesaid two section 182 and 211 should be invoked only after where the FIR is quashed by the HC, or if the Court has discharged the Accused or has acquitted the Accused. Where, in pursuance to said false complaint, criminal proceedings before the court have been initiated, then, an Application under section 340 read with section 195 of CrPC 1973, may be preferred before the said Magistrate / Sessions court, against those persons, praying therein for Magistrates court to refer the said offence of false accusation to the appropriate / competent Magistrate Court of jurisdiction. (IPC Section 182: False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. IPC Section 211: False charge of offence made with intent to injure.) c) Where the Magistrates Court acquits the person against whom false FIR / Complaint is made, Compensation may be sought under section 250 of CrPC, 1973, from that Magistrates court, against the persons who have knowingly filed false FIR / complaint. d) Writ of Mandamus may be preferred before respective High court seeking exemplary Damages / Compensation from respective State Government for “malicious prosecution” by the Police. e) A Suit for exemplary Damages for Defamation or Suit for compensation for malicious prosecution can be filed against the person who has filed the false complaint, including against the Police.