Powers U/S 482 CrPC Not Revisional/Appellate, Terms Like "Abuse Of Process" Or "Securing Ends Of Justice" Don't Grant Unfettered Discretion: J&K High Court
Reiterating the restricted nature of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing criminal complaints the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that this exceptional power cannot be used for detailed evidence evaluation or as a substitute for appeals or revisions.A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani further clarified that terms like...
Reiterating the restricted nature of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing criminal complaints the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that this exceptional power cannot be used for detailed evidence evaluation or as a substitute for appeals or revisions.
A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani further clarified that terms like "abuse of process" or "securing ends of justice" do not grant the High Court unfettered discretion.
The observations came while hearing a plea seeking invocation of the Court's inherent power for seeking quashing of a complaint. The case involved a dishonoured cheque complaint filed against an accused (petitioner) by the complainant for an outstanding payment related to construction work.
The accused challenged the complaint's validity and the magistrate's order taking cognisance, arguing that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and the complaint constituted an abuse of process due to an alleged settlement.
Upon examining the complaint the court found that it contained specific allegations regarding the dishonored cheque and fulfilled all legal requirements, establishing a firm factual basis for the offense.
Highlighting that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not meant for routine exercise and should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances Justice Wani explained that expressions like "abuse of process" or "securing ends of justice" do not grant the High Court boundless authority.
“The High Court is not required to embark upon the appreciation of evidence for quashing the proceedings and even the expressions “abuse of process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” have been held by the Apex Court not conferring an unlimited jurisdiction in the High Court besides holding that if factual foundation for offence has been laid down in the complaint, the High Court should not hasten to quash proceedings merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated therein”, the bench recorded.
Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, refusing to exercise its inherent power in this case. However, it clarified that the observations made were limited to the petition's scope and would not influence the ongoing proceedings before the magistrate.
Case Title: Iftikar Ahmad Vs Abdul Majeed
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 11