Section 482 of CrPC is Limited and High Courts need not look into the validity of the Evidences: Supreme Court

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The inherent power of the High Court is enshrined in Section 482 CrPC. The inherent powers are those powers which the court is deemed to have with regard to ensuring justice and fairness. The extent of this inherent power goes to the extent of quashing investigations, quashing FIRs or criminal proceedings before any subordinate court or High Court. The inherent powers of the High Court are mainly to meet the ends of justice and prevent people from abusing the process of law. However, these powers are to be exercised with prudence and vigilance. Section 482 CrPC provides as follows:

Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Supreme Court has on 5th December 2019, in M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi, held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should not deal with the evidence available for the case and whether the alleged offences can be proved or not.

Facts of the Case

The appellant filed a complaint under 200 CrPC before a Magistrate alleging that her husband had committed the offence bigamy under the Section 494 IPC and also the offences punishable under Section 493, 120-B and 506(II) of IPC. The appellant claimed in her complaint that she married her husband in 1983 and has 3 children with the said wedlock. The appellant in her complaint to the magistrate also claimed that the respondent married again during the subsistence of their first marriage in 2011.

The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint made by the appellant on the basis that there was no evidence to prove the alleged bigamous marriage. The appellant, however, brought forward the 2011 Government Gazette in which the other woman claimed to be the wife of the respondent. But the High Court was of the opinion that to prove the second marriage the complainant needs to provide the form of marriage, witnesses to marriage and details about the time, place and date of marriage.

On the basis of this, the High Court quashed the complaint of the accused on the ground that even though the complainant is producing the Government Gazette document but being a government document under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act it also needs to be corroborated with other evidence. Therefore the High Court threw the complaint on the ground of lack of evidence.

The appellant aggrieved by the quashing of the complaint by the High Court had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Order Of The Supreme Court

The counsel of the appellant contended that the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is limited and while exercising their power under Section 482 CrPC the High Court should not look that whether the evidence will be able to prove the allegations.

The Supreme Court held that the court should only look into whether the essentials of a specified offence which is claimed is being fulfilled or not. The High Court under its inherent power should not look into how the allegations will be proved.

The Court may also be entitled to see

(i) Whether the  pre­conditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and

(ii) Whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.

The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the appellant had all the relevant ingredients in her complaint in relation to the offence alleged. The Supreme Court said,

“Unfortunately, the High Court put the cart before the horse and held that the appellant had not produced any evidence to prove the entry in the Government Gazette though it is a relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.  Much before the case could reach the stage of the trial, the High Court shut the door for the appellant and pre¬concluded the issue as though there was no evidence at all. This is completely contrary to law”.

Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeal of the appellant. The apex court also ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings.


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -