4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution

Indian consitution

A ne WordPress.com site

LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS

ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

OCTOBER 16, 2012 LEAVE A COMMENT (HTTPS://247ONLINELAWYER.WORDPRESS.COM/2012/10/16/EGAL-OPTIONS-

FOR-AN-INNOCENT-PERSON-WHO-IS-ACCUSED-OF-HAVING-COMMITTED-A-CRIMINAL-OFFENCE/#RESPOND)

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 oence and le 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 led before the High Court, for the
quashing of said FIR, on the ground that (a) acts and omission a ributed towards the accused person in the FIR does not constitute any
oence; or (b) No incidence of oence as alleged in the FIR has happened; or (c) the FIR contains bare allegation without a ributing
whatsoever acts or omission on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the oences.

2. If false, frivolous and baseless Complaint is led 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 led and the case is commi ed to Sessions Court, for the trial of oence charged with, then, before the framing
of charges (Note 2) by the Sessions Judge, the accused person may le a Discharge Application u/s 227, thereby seeking his discharge of
the oence charged with, on the ground that (a) there is no prima facie evidence or there is no any incriminating material against the
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/ 1/7
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
the oence 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 oence charged with; or (b) material / evidences on record are grossly
insucient 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 led 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 le a Discharge Application u/s 239 / 245, thereby seeking his discharge of the
oence charged with, on the same grounds as stated hereinbefore.
5. However, where the person has led a Petition before HC for quashing of FIR, as stated hereinbefore, and during the pendency of
said Petition, the Police les 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 le Discharge Application as provided under Sections 227, 239 and 245.
6. An Application u/s 482 can be maintained (i) even a er the ling of Chargesheet by the Police; (ii) even a er the commencement of
trial and during the trial, provided the ingredients of Section 482 must be substantially satised 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, therea er Application may be made u/s 232 for the acqui al of the
accused, on the grounds of no oence 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,
therea er, Application may be made u/s 258 for the acqui al / discharge of the accused, on the grounds of no oence 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 oence 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 oences as provided u/s 320 and such compounding of oences has the
eect of acqui al 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 nding 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 nding 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 le 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 led 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 oence 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 led 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 oence and issue Summons /
Warrant against the persons named in the said Complaint, the right accrues in favour of the accused person to le 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 Ocers 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 reects the, meticulous or weak, investigation made by2/7
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
Note 2: Framing of Charges by the Court is a very critical stage of the trial which reects 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 reect 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 ma er of fact, in my view, where Charges cannot be framed with sucient 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 Mi al 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 commi ed 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 acqui al. 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 rst information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the oence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an oence, 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 Kapurs case observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay
down any inexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Courts inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the
judgment as to when the High Court would be justied 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 Honble 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 specied 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 nds 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 oences 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 ramications 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 dierent 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 suer, 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
permi ed 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 ma er 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 se led 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 oence. 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 satised, (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie
establish the oence, 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
oences 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, oence was prima facie established and it was not expedient and in3/7
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
(1996) 6 SCC 263 and held that on cumulative reading of the complaint, oence 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 oence 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 des/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 stie or scu le 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 oence 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 bere of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for
making out the oence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal oence; or (c ) a civil wrong as also a criminal
oence. 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 oence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are dierent 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 oence 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
permi ed 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 permi ed 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 unspecied restrictions or limitations in exercise of such powers. Power to quash is an ancillary or
essential aspect of inherent powers of the court. The denition 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
oences 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 Honble 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 satised 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 inexible 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 Mi al 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
oences 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 stie 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 specic 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 ma ers covered by the provisions of the Code unless there is specic
provision to redress the grievance of the aggrieved party;
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/ 4/7
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
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 eect 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 justied 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 ma ers specically 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 commi ing oence 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 permi ed 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 rst 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 unjustiably subjected to an
undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie well merited prosecution is thro led 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 U aranchal and others, AIR 2008 SC 251 while referring to the law, both on
scope and ambit of courts 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 justied in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specic 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
1. The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specic provision in the code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.
3. It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engra ed 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.
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/ 5/7
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
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 oence 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 oence is made out then the High Court will be justied 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 oence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the oence 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- nd out whether the case would end in
conviction or acqui al. 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 oence or oences are disclosed and there is
no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala de, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justication for interference
by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an oence is registered, then the mala des 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 des 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. Ku an, 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 nds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or an order was not correct, the HC
may be justied 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 aected 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 dierent 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 specic 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
a ained nality, 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 dierent
accused in the same case are being treated dierently 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 oence alleged to have been commi ed is more than two
years.
Note 5: All Sections referred here pertains to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
POST SCRIPT:
1. As a ma er 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 sucient to jeopardize & frustrate the dignity of an innocent man and he becomes
suspicious in the eyes of the Society.
In my view, the said classication 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
https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/ 6/7
4/10/2017 LEGAL OPTIONS FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE | Indian consitution
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
a racted.
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 ocers who
have knowingly registered false FIR / or have falsely arrested / or if are falsely prosecuting the case, alleging therein your complaint that
said Police ocer have commi ed the oence dened under section 218 and 220 of IPC, 1860.
b) It is a criminal oence 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 led false complaint.
In such cases, as far as oence under Section 182 is concerned, a complaint can be made to the Police ocer to whom false complaint has
been made, or complaint can be made to a higher authority about the ling of said false complaint, and the concerned Police ocer or the
higher authority is empowered to le the case against the person in the Magistrates Court who has made false complaint to the Police.
As far as oence 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 a er where the FIR is quashed by the HC, or if the Court has
discharged the Accused or has acqui ed 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 oence 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 oence 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 led 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 led against the person
who has led the false complaint, including against the Police.
Advertisements

Share Your Passion

Create a professional
website and start blogging
today

Get started

FILED UNDER CRIMINAL, LEGAL OPTION

Blog at WordPress.com.

https://247onlinelawyer.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/egal-options-for-an-innocent-person-who-is-accused-of-having-committed-a-criminal-offence/ 7/7