Scribd
Upload
7 views

Inherent Power

The document discusses the inherent powers of the High Court as outlined in Section 528 of the BNSS, which allows the court to make necessary orders to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process. It emphasizes that these powers are recognized rather than conferred, and provides guidelines for their exercise, including specific cases where they can and cannot be invoked. Additionally, it references relevant case law to illustrate the application of these inherent powers in various legal contexts.

Uploaded by

Archit Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

Inherent Power

The document discusses the inherent powers of the High Court as outlined in Section 528 of the BNSS, which allows the court to make necessary orders to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process. It emphasizes that these powers are recognized rather than conferred, and provides guidelines for their exercise, including specific cases where they can and cannot be invoked. Additionally, it references relevant case law to illustrate the application of these inherent powers in various legal contexts.

Uploaded by

Archit Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Inherent Powers of the High Court

Introduction
The term inherent means existing and inseparable from something, a permanent attribute
or quality. Inherent powers are the powers which are inalienable from Courts and may be
exercised by a Court to do full and complete justice between the disputed parties before it.
The Court has inherent power to mould the procedure to enable it to pass such orders as
the ends of justice may require.

▪ Section 528 of the (BNSS) deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Section 528 of BNSS


▪ This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.

▪ It states that 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.

▪ This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it
only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers

▪ This Section is silent as regards inherent powers of subordinate courts.

▪ The use of the word "otherwise" in this Section has the avowed effect of
boundlessly broadening the boundaries of inherent powers of the High Court in
exercise of its criminal jurisdiction.

▪ No limitation period has been prescribed for making an application under this
Section. However, the application is to be filed within a reasonable period.

Purpose of Section 528 of BNSS


▪ Section 528 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.

▪ It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised.

o The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make
orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
o The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court.

o The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise
to secure the ends of justice.

Principles for the Application of Section 528 of BNSS


▪ In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra (1977), the Supreme
Court enumerated the following principles that would govern the High Court’s
inherent jurisdiction:

o That inherent power must not be resorted to, if specific provision for
redressal of grievances has been given.

o That it should be carefully used to prevent abuse of process of any Court or


otherwise to secure ends of justice.

o That it should not be exercised against the express provision given in any
other statute.

Exercise of Inherent Powers of High Court


▪ As stated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the
inherent powers under Section 528 can be exercised in the following cases: -

o Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.

o Where the allegations in the FIR or other materials do not


constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police
under Section 156(1) of the BNSS. except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the BNSS.

o Where the unconverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence


collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence.

o Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable


offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no
investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under
Section 155(2) of the BNSS.
o Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

o Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

o Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala


fide intentions and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite
him due to private and personal vengeance.

o The list is not exhaustive but only illustrative in nature.

▪ In the following cases, the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked:

o To quash the proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR


made to the police in a cognizable case; to interfere with the statutory rights
of the police to investigate a cognizable case.

o To quash an investigation just because the FIR does not disclose any
offence when investigation could be carried out on the basis of other
materials.

o To embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise


of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

o Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only against final orders and not against
interlocutory orders.

o To order stay of arrest of accused during investigation.

Section 528 of BNSS and Bail Provisions


▪ The inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used by the High Court to
reopen or alter an order, after disposing a bail petition decided on merits.

▪ Bail cannot be granted by virtue of Section 528 BNSS.


▪ If bail is granted in a bailable offence, there is no provision in BNSS to cancel it.
However, the High Court can cancel it by invoking inherent power on the grounds of
tampering with the witness, bribing the officials, or an attempt to abscond etc.

Section 528 of BNSS and Quashing of the Proceedings


▪ In the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that
in the following cases the inherent jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised to
quash the proceedings:

o Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of


proceedings.

o Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute the offence
alleged.

o Where either there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or


the evidence adduced clearly failed to prove the charge.

Case Laws
▪ In the case of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), the
Supreme Court held that a fresh investigation or re-investigation after filing of
chargesheet by police can be ordered by High Court under Section 528 of
BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

▪ In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and Ors. (2008), the Supreme Court
cautioned against entertaining Section 528 BNSS petitions if the FIR remains
unregistered, advocating for the pursuit of alternative remedies like approaching
police officers or the Magistrate.

▪ In the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,(2023), the
Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 528 of BNSS would not
be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of
the first petition.

You might also like