Section 482 of Crpc and Powers of Quashing of Fir
CODE FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROJECT ON
SECTION 482 and POWERS OF QUASH OF FIR
SUBMITTED BY:-
ANKITA VERMA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INHERENT JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE HIGH COURTS
3. INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 226 FOR FIR QUASHING
4. VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT
5. AMENDMENT OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ENABLING
6. RESTORATION OF COMPLAINTS
7. THE ACTIVIST PHASE
8. GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISING THE INHERENT POWERS
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
Sec 482 deals with Inherent powers of the Court. It is under the 37th Chapter of the Code titled “Miscellaneous”.
The state high courts in India have been given supervisory and regulatory powers over the conduct of the lower criminal courts within their respective territorial jurisdiction, including inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC. Section 482 confers inherent powers on the state high courts to intervene in any criminal proceedings, to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. Faced with a false criminal complaint, a person can file a petition under section 482 of the CrPC with the state high court and seek quashing of the criminal complaint.
Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are exercised sparingly and with caution.
Section 482 CrPC talks about the inherent powers of the high courts. This section reproduces
SECTION 482 and POWERS OF QUASH OF FIR
SUBMITTED BY:-
ANKITA VERMA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INHERENT JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE HIGH COURTS
3. INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 226 FOR FIR QUASHING
4. VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT
5. AMENDMENT OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ENABLING
6. RESTORATION OF COMPLAINTS
7. THE ACTIVIST PHASE
8. GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISING THE INHERENT POWERS
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
Sec 482 deals with Inherent powers of the Court. It is under the 37th Chapter of the Code titled “Miscellaneous”.
The state high courts in India have been given supervisory and regulatory powers over the conduct of the lower criminal courts within their respective territorial jurisdiction, including inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC. Section 482 confers inherent powers on the state high courts to intervene in any criminal proceedings, to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. Faced with a false criminal complaint, a person can file a petition under section 482 of the CrPC with the state high court and seek quashing of the criminal complaint.
Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are exercised sparingly and with caution.
Section 482 CrPC talks about the inherent powers of the high courts. This section reproduces
Bibliography: 7. Sen D N, The code of criminal procedure, Vol-II, Premier Publishing Company, 2006. [ 2 ]. State of U.P. Vs. O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 705 [ 3 ] [ 4 ]. ( 1999) 8 SCC 686 [ 5 ] [ 6 ]. 2006 AIR SCW 2543 [ 7 ] [ 10 ]. 1992Supp(1)SCC335 [ 11 ] [ 14 ]. .[Tulsamma v. Jagannath, 2004 Cri. L. J. 4272]State of Kerala v. Vijayan, 1985(1) CRIMES 261] [ 15 ] [ 16 ]. [1973 Cri. L. J. 1288] [ 17 ] [ 18 ]. Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 41 [ 19 ] [ 20 ]. Basu, D D, Criminal procedure code, 1973 , 441 [ 21 ] [ 22 ]. (1944) 71 Ind. App.203.