S.482 CrPC Can Be Invoked To Secure Justice Despite Availability Of Revisional Remedy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to secure justice and to prevent abuse of court process despite the availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397. 

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A disagreed with the findings in Bayyarapu Suresh Babu v. State of Andra Pradesh & Ors (2021) and observed that the availability of a revisional remedy is not an absolute bar from the Court exercising its inherent powers on a matter. 

"I am of the view that there cannot be any absolute bar in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because of the reason that, a remedy of revision is available in a particular case. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice." 

The petitioner was the registered owner of a truck. Through an agreement, this truck was rented out to the 1st accused. The original registration certificate was also handed over to the first accused to operate the vehicle.  However, the 1st accused subsequently failed to pay the rent. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the ownership of the truck had been fraudulently transferred to the 3rd respondent using false documents.

The petitioner filed a complaint regarding the same, which led to the police seizing the vehicle. Meanwhile, he sought the release of the seized truck under Section 451 of the CrPC, but this was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the original registration certificate of the vehicle. The Magistrate also relied on the fact that the vehicle was seized from the possession of the third respondent and not the petitioner.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the dismissal. Advocate S. Rajeev representing the petitioner argued that the very basis of the complaint was that the vehicle was transferred fraudulently through forged documents, thus it was impossible for him to obtain the original registration certificate. It was also argued that interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied to the petitioner merely because it was not seized from his possession.  

Advocate Manas P Hameed appearing for the third respondent contested the maintainability of the petition alleging that inherent powers under Section 482 could not be invoked in this case because an order passed under Section 451 is revisable under Section 397. Several precedents supported this argument, Bayyarapu Suresh Babu v. State of Andra Pradesh being the prominent one. 

However, the High Court disagreed with the observation in the Bayyarapu Suresh Babu case. While it has been clarified that orders barred from revisional jurisdiction cannot be challenged using inherent powers, in this case, the challenge against invoking inherent powers is not due to a bar on revisional jurisdiction, but rather due to the availability of the revisional remedy, the bench noted.

After considering all relevant aspects, the Judge concluded that there should not be an absolute bar in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 simply because the remedy of revision is available. The powers under Section 482 can be invoked in cases of abuse of court process or to secure justice, it was added.

The Court also noted that while it is true that the petitioner chose to utilise the remedy provided under Section 482, despite having the alternative option to file a revision under Section 397, the fact remains that this petition had already been admitted and nearing the final stages of consideration.

Applying this logic to the question of interim custody of the truck, Justice Rahman found that keeping the vehicle exposed to weather conditions at the police station any further would only be detrimental to both parties.

"As the purpose of the jurisdiction vested upon this Court under Section 482, CrPC is to secure the ends of justice, I am of the view that the contention put forward by the 3rd respondent as to the maintainability of this petition has to be rejected on this ground. This is particularly because dismissing this application on such a technical plea and relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision would only further prolong the proceedings."

Besides, it was pointed out that even if a revision petition was filed, it would have to be considered by the High Court, which renders the objection meaningless. 

Justice Rahman further pointed out that there was no universal principle to decide the question of interim custody of the vehicle, and that it would depend on the facts of each case. As such, the Court dismissed the third respondent's contention that interim custody has to be entrusted to the registered owner of the vehicle. 

"The ultimate aim is to find out the competent person for entrusting the custody of the vehicle so that it can be preserved until the disposal of the case, and such competence may vary from case to case," Justice Rahman added. 

Accordingly, the application was allowed with conditions and the impugned order of the Magistrate was set aside. 

Senior Public Prosecutor Sreeja V appeared for the State in the matter. 

Case Title: Shamir T.J v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 305

Click Here To Read/Download the Order