📘 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE EXPLAINED

The following is the original unaltered text, formatted for clarity and readability:

 		INHERENT    POWERS    OF    HIGH    COURT 
Preparation for RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Service exams

TOPICS
•	What is this inherent power?
•	How is this power to be exercised?
Supreme Court judgments discussed in this post:
•	Minu Kumari    v.   State of Bihar   [2006  SC]
•	R.P. Kapur   v.   State of Punjab  [1960  SC]
•	State of  Haryana v. Bhajan Lal  [1992 SC]
•	Khushi Ram  v.  Hashim  [1959 SC]
•	Madhu Limaye    v.    State of Maharashtra   [1977 SC]
•	Hooghly Mills Company  v.  State of West Bengal October 17, 2019  SC

CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  CODE  EXPLAINED			
The Criminal Procedure Code forms the bedrock of any and every Judicial Service exam in the country. Its thorough knowledge is a must for all aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and every other Judicial Service exam. To help such aspirants, DELHI LAW ACADEMY JAIPUR has launched a series of study material modules on all important aspects of this vital part of their syllabus: 

***************

Section 482		Inherent powers of High Court 
•	Nothing in this Code shall be deemed 
–	to limit or affect the inherent powers of a High Court 
•	to make 
–	such orders as may be necessary 
–	to give effect to any order under this Code 
–	to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
–	to secure the ends of justice

The Law on section 482:
What is this inherent power?
Minu Kumari    v.   State of Bihar   [2006  SC]
•	All Courts,   whether civil or criminal,  possess, in the absence of any express provision,  as inherent in their  constitution, all such powers   as are necessary  to do  the right  and to undo a wrong  in the course of administration of justice...  
•	on the principle  “quando lex aliquid  alicue concedit....”
•	that is: when the law gives a person  anything, it gives him  that  without which  it cannot exist.    

In re State of Uttar Pradesh  [1959 All]
•	Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a reminder  to the High Courts  that they are  not merely   courts of law  but also  courts of justice  and possess  inherent powers  to remove injustice.  

How is this power to be exercised?
R.P. Kapur   v.   State of Punjab  [1960  SC]
•	It is to be exercised  ex debito justitiae  to do  real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone  courts exist.

•	ex debito justitiae:
–	as a debt of justice 
–	in accordance with the requirement of justice 
–	as a matter of right
•	A matter ex debito justiciae is one which a litigant is entitled merely upon the asking for it; as opposed to something which may be a matter of judicial discretion or determination.
•	The inherent power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection  and in the rarest of rare cases.

State of  Haryana v. Bhajan Lal  [1992 SC]
•	Inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked   in regard to matters which are directly covered by  specific provisions  in the Cr.P.C.  

Khushi Ram  v.  Hashim  [1959 SC]
•	Whether the bar under Sec. 397 (2) Cr.P.C. in relation to  interlocutory orders is applicable to Section 482 Cr.P.C. ? 

Madhu Limaye    v.    State of Maharashtra   [1977 SC]
•	Generally speaking,  the bar put on revision of an interlocutory order u/s 397 (2)  Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented by invoking sec 482.
•	But nothing in the Code, not even Section 397,  can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in Section 482.   
•	Where the impugned interlocutory order  clearly brings about  a situation  which is an abuse of the  process of the court, then...
•	...for securing the ends of justice,  interference by High Court  is absolutely necessary  and nothing contained in  Section 397 (2) can limit the exercise of   the inherent power of High Court. 

Interlocutory order only settles intervening matter relating to the cause. 
•	Such orders are made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of case and generally collateral to the issues to be settled by the court in the final judgment.
•	As a general rule of law on appeal lies against an interlocutory order. But there are interlocutory orders which can be challenged in an appeal against the final decree.
•	Any reference to an interlocutory order generally includes interim orders. 
•	An interim order is fully enforceable until and unless it is changed by a final order:  
•	An interim or interlocutory order is by definition an order made pending the cause, before a final disposition on the merits.
•	Whether an interlocutory order can be revised by the High Court despite the bar of section 397(2) CrPC?

Hooghly Mills Company  v.  State of West Bengal October 17, 2019  SC
•	Section 397(2) provides that a High Court’s powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order… 
•	…whereas Section 482 provides that nothing in Cr.P.C will limit the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. 
•	Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar u/s 397(2). 
•	However, it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases. 
•	This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction.
•	Whether Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to review an earlier order ?                 
****************