JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing of FIR No.238 dated 19.10.2012, registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, by Mangal Dass Gautam and his wife Neelam Gautam (father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant Neha) through Charanjit Singh, their Special Power of Attorney. 2. On preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 complainant that the petition is not maintainable through a Power of Attorney as the same has not been filed by the petitioners themselves, therefore, deserves dismissal, was considered by the learned Single Judge where two conflicting judgments were cited before the Court, one being Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586, where it was held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable through Attorney resulting in its dismissal, another being of a Coordinate Single Bench Kuldeep Singh Jaswal & others vs. Jaspal Singh & another, 2016 (2) AICLR 703 with a contrary view, where a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom through Attorney, observed that this Court would insist upon filing of the petition by the accused person himself/herself yet there cannot be or should not be laid down a straight jacket formula in this regard, leaving it open at the discretion of the concerned Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the said case. This led to a Reference to a Larger Bench, which reads as under:- "Taking into consideration, conflict in the two decisions rendered by this Court and in absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') authorizing an accused to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. through an Attorney, the matter may be placed before a Larger Bench for decision on the following issues:- i) Whether a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings can be filed by an accused through an Attorney, if so, under what circumstances? ii) If issue No.l is answered in negative, whether the same would apply with equal force to an accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise?" 3. ii) If issue No.l is answered in negative, whether the same would apply with equal force to an accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise?" 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 1882 Act') to emphasize upon the nature and purpose for which, such provisions have been provided for under the statute. Emphasis has been placed on Sections 1-A and 2 of 1882 Act. 4. With regard to Question No.l, he contends that the objection, which has been raised by respondent No.2-complainant is not sustainable as there is no restrictions on the discretionary powers as conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. upon the High Court. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Pepsi Foods Limited & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & other 1998 (5) SCC 749 , B.S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Harvana & others 2003 (4) SCC 675 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State of Harvana 2008 (16) SCC 1 . 5. Referring to the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further emphasized upon the extraordinary powers conferred on this Court not only under the statute but also under the Constitution of India. He, therefore, contends that there cannot be any bar in relation to maintainability relatable to the locus standi of a person to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking relief. Further dilating upon the entitlement of a Power of Attorney holder to initiate proceedings and the extent to which the said power can be invoked, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & others Vs. Basant Nahata, 2005 (12) S.C.C. 77, where a notification issued by the Rajasthan Government prohibiting the registration of the Power of Attorney was quashed being opposed to public policy as a Power of Attorney which has been executed under the 1882 Act being within the four corners of the legislation including the Indian Contract Act, could not be barred from registration. 6. 6. Reference has also been made to the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Syed Wasif Husain Rizvii Vs Hasan Raza Khan and others, 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 562, where the Allahabad High Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Nahata's case (supra), although dealing with the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that power of instituting a petition through the Power of Attorney is maintainable. He, therefore, equates the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with that of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. With regard to maintainability of a petition through Power of Attorney, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Singh JaswaFs case (supra) and judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-14752-2009, titled as 'Asheesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajesh Gupta', decided on 14.08.2013, where, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proceeded to entertain the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed through Power of Attorney for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. He, on this basis, prays that the question(s) referred to the Division Bench be answered in the affirmative by holding a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. through Attorney to be maintainable. 8. As regards the circumstances under which such a petition would be maintainable, his submission is that the same would be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore, the same be kept open to be decided by the Court accordingly. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submit that while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Amit Ahuja's case (supra) that a Power of Attorney holder is not a person aggrieved and therefore, the petition is not maintainable, they contend that the Hon'ble Supreme court in Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Chaudhary & others, 1991 (3) S.C.C. 756 , has held that it is the accused persons who alone can raise any question for which they seek an answer and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court could be availed of by those persons only unless there are exceptional circumstances that too as provided under the statute permitting exercise of such remedy such as where aggrieved person is a minor or of unsound mind etc. Here the accused persons are alive, able bodied and capable of defending themselves and protecting their interest, therefore, they should have approached the High Court themselves rather than seeking recourse of approaching the Court through a third person. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India & another, 1992 (4) SCC 653 , they submit that the proceedings can be initiated by the parties aggrieved and not by a total stranger, who has no direct personal stake in the matter. 10 They, on the basis of the above referred to judgments, submit that it is only the person against whom FIR has been registered or a criminal complaint has been filed and/or who has been nominated as an accused later on, can file a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court and that too personally. The litigation cannot be fought as a proxy war on behalf of or in the garb of a Power of Attorney. It is contended that no disability has been highlighted in the petition which would indicate their inability to approach the High Court themselves and therefore, it is asserted that the Reference deserves to be answered in the negative and it be held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable through an Attorney. 11 We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the statutory provisions and judgments referred to above. 12. We would not endeavour to delve into the factual matrix of the case in hand but are restricting ourselves to the Reference which has been reproduced above. 13. Let us first understand what Power of Attorney is and how it works. 12. We would not endeavour to delve into the factual matrix of the case in hand but are restricting ourselves to the Reference which has been reproduced above. 13. Let us first understand what Power of Attorney is and how it works. Section 1-A of The Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, reads as follows:- "1-A. Definition In this Act, "Powers-of-Attorney" include any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it." 14. The above definition would indicate that it is a loosely worded definition giving vast powers to a donor to execute an instrument empowering a person named therein to do some act for and in the name of the donor, which would mean that if an act or acts are done by the empowered person, acts on behalf of the Principal, which, had it not been for the instrument, could only be done by the Principal himself. It would not be out of way to mention here that there are no guidelines as such with regard to the Power of Attorney which can be executed i.e. for the purpose of matters civil or criminal in nature. 15. Section 2 of the 1882 Act reads as follows:- "2. Execution under power-of-attorney The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to power-of-attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force." 16. A perusal of the above would show that any act done by the donee of the Power of Attorney i.e. Power of Attorney holder would be as if the same has been done by the donor himself, a word of caution is that it should be within the authority which is conferred under the instrument and further, it cannot be overriding the specific provisions of the statute, which requires that a particular act should be done by a party in person. Thus, it can be said that the Power of Attorney operates and is restricted within the authority as conferred expressly or by necessary implication and not beyond it. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Nahata's case (supra), had an occasion to deal with the 1882 Act in conjunction with the Indian Contract Act and in para 13 thereof, observed as follows:- "13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Indian Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well-known, a document of convenience. 18. In para 14, it was said that besides the Indian Contract Act, the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 deals with the subject. Section 1-A of the Power of Attorney Act defines Power of Attorney to include any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. After reproducing Section 2 of the 1882 Act, it was concluded that execution of a deed of Power of Attorney is valid in law and subject to the provisions of the Act and is not compulsorily registrable. 19. Thereafter, while concluding, the power conferred under the 1882 Act and its usage, held as follows in para 52. "52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act as also the Power of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee." 20. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that prohibition of registration of the Power of Attorney was opposed to the public policy and the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was quashed in the light of the fact that the 1882 Act read with the Indian Contract Act, did not mandate the registration of the same. 21. It can, in view of the above, be said the Power of Attorney to be a written authority given by a Principal empowering the person named therein to do some act or acts on his/her behalf which can be either general, specific or special. This document, details therein, the purpose and the authority conferred thereunder and any act done or action taken under the said instrument has to be relatable to the powers conferred therein. From Section 2 of the 1882 Act, what turns out is that any act done under this instrument shall have the effect as if it has been executed or done by the donee of the Power of Attorney in the name with signatures on the seal of the donor thereof. The 1882 Act makes no distinction between civil and criminal matters and there is no bar with regard to the said Power of Attorney being executed relatable to civil matters only and/or excluding the criminal matters. There being no bar in this regard, a Power of Attorney can be executed with regard to initiating proceedings which may be criminal in nature and that power would be derived from such instrument. The present petition, therefore, can be said to be maintainable as the same has been filed under the authority conferred by and under the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners, execution or legality whereof has not been questioned. 22. The present petition, therefore, can be said to be maintainable as the same has been filed under the authority conferred by and under the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners, execution or legality whereof has not been questioned. 22. A question would arise as to where and to what extent can an attorney holder hold the field and would be able to give evidence with regard to matters involving personal knowledge and to what extent? An attorney holder may sign the pleadings and institute the same as well if he has personal knowledge of the transaction or he had done any act or handled any transaction in pursuance to the Power of Attorney granted by the Principal. Obviously, where the transaction has been done by him and therefore, he alone has personal knowledge, he need not rely upon the knowledge of the Principal. Similar would be the position with regard to giving evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge. It can be simply stated that whosoever has personal knowledge about a particular fact or transaction, can give evidence with regard thereto. However, there can be exceptions to this rule where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney, who happens to be a close relative or family member where his evidence can be accepted with regard to the very personal needs and requirements and even willingness and bona fides such as attorney holder of husband/wife, son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of old and infirm parents, father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of son/daughter living abroad. 23. Initiation of civil proceedings through a Power of Attorney is well known, accepted and provided for under various statutes and therefore, there being no dispute on this aspect, we move on to the issue involved in the present case i.e. initiation of the criminal proceedings through a Power of Attorney holder. It is not in dispute that there is no bar under the statute for initiation of the criminal proceedings by a Power of Attorney, however, where there is such a power under a particular statute or where the requirement of a statute is such that a particular act can only be done in a particular manner and that too, by a particular person, in that situation, a Power of Attorney cannot take place of the Principal. It is well settled that criminal law can be put in motion by anyone. Reference in this regard can be made to Vishwa Mitter of Vijav Bharat Cigarette Stores Vs. P.P. Poddar & others 1983 (4) SCC 701 where it is held that under the statute, one stranger to the transaction in question such as legal heirs etc. can also carry forward the pending criminal complaint or initiate criminal action if the original complainant dies. In this regard, reference can also be made to Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra 1967 (1) SCR 807 . Section 303 of Cr.P.C. entitles a person to the right of being defended by a pleader of his choice when proceedings are initiated against him and he is accused of an offence before a criminal Court. Section 2 (q) of Cr.P.C. defines a pleader, which means a person authorized by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in Court, and also includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding. It, thus, cannot be said that an accused has no choice except to appoint an advocate. Any other person can also be appointed as a pleader but with the permission of the Court. Appointing a person through Power of Attorney could be one such mode but the permission of the Court would be essential for such person. 24. Thus, it cannot be said as a rule that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated through a Power of Attorney, who is more than a stranger to the matter, in any case. Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to decide a Reference made to a Larger Bench because of the conflicting judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the various High Courts on this aspect. Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to decide a Reference made to a Larger Bench because of the conflicting judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the various High Courts on this aspect. The Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan & others Versus State of Maharashtra & another 2013 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 306, while dealing with initiation of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney, has looked into the exceptions also where proceedings through Power of Attorney holder or legal representatives could be permissible and, it has been held that criminal law can be put into motion by anyone and under the statute through a stranger to a transaction in question where an aggrieved person had died, the said pending criminal complaint can be carried forward through a legal heir. Similarly, criminal action can also be initiated in such circumstances and in such situations, where, as a result of sickness, old age, death, staying abroad, in due course person is not able to appear and depose before the Court in order to prove the complaint, it is permissible for Power of Attorney holder or the legal representative to file a complaint and/or continue with the pending criminal complaint for and on behalf of such aggrieved provided the Power of Attorney or legal representative has knowledge about the transaction in question and so isable to bring out the truth on record of the grievance/offence. The Court has further, while dealing with Section 200 of Cr.P.C, where a plea was taken that no complaint can be filed and no cognizance thereof can be taken if the complaint is through a Power of Attorney, held that there is no dispute that the complaint has to be filed by the complainant as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. but the said Section create no embargo that the attorney holder or the legal representative cannot be a complainant. 25. 25. A person, who is infirm and unable to move about, has also the same right like others to sue and defend himself/herself for his/her cause in the Courts etc, but due to aforesaid infirmity, it is not possible for him/her, sometimes, to do the same in person, then a need arises to depute someone to defend the cause on his/her behalf by giving self intention and willingness/authority to a person to do on his/her behalf in the form of Power of Attorney. 26. Likewise, a person who is settled abroad/residing far away from the jurisdiction of Court where his/her cause is to be settled/decided, and is unable to sue/defend himself/herself for any cause pending in the Courts of Law, due to the reasons of health, residing far away from that place, there also a need arises to sue/defend himself/herself through some person of good-faith by giving willingness, intention or desire executing a authoritative instrument in favour of such person to work on behalf of such executant. 27. The relation between such persons is of fiduciary capacity as by giving such authority, one has to execute an instrument in the form of Power of Attorney detailing therein the powers and limitations, if any, of that attorney holder to do or not to do an act on his/her behalf. 28. More so, access to justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India to citizens. The citizen's inability to access Courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations are bound to result in denying the guarantee contained in Article 14, both in relation to equality before law as well as equal protection of laws. Needless to say, absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy of such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent those looking for enforcement of their right to equality before laws and equal protection of laws from seeking redress and thereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws or equal protection of laws, where there is no specific bar under the statute. Thus, such person should be allowed to sue/defend himself/herself and/or through his/her Power of Attorney. 29. Thus, such person should be allowed to sue/defend himself/herself and/or through his/her Power of Attorney. 29. The Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Syed Wasif Husain Rizvii's case (supra), with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through a Power of Attorney holder, has, in paras 24 and 25 held as follows:- "24. When a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is instituted through a power of attorney holder, the holder of the power of attorney does not espouse a right or claim personal to him but acts as an agent of the donor of the instrument. The petition which is instituted, is always instituted in the name of the principal who is the donor of the power of attorney andthrough whom the donee acts as his agent. In other words, the petition which is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution is not by the power of attorney holder independently for himself but as an agent acting for and on behalf of the principal in whose name the writ proceedings are instituted before the Court. 25. Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following: (1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application; (2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and (3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge." 30. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide which can be exercised, wherever, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is not bonafide and/or for the purpose to secure the ends of justice. This power is not restricted to offences which are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and there can be no bar in exercise of powers under this Section. This power is not restricted to offences which are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and there can be no bar in exercise of powers under this Section. The power to be exercised by the High Court cannot be restricted to cases where only the accused person approaches the Court when the general principle is that the criminal law can be put into motion by anyone and in case the facts and circumstances so require, the Court would not hesitate to exercise its discretionary powers to do justice. 31. Before Proceeding further, the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as also the jurisdiction of High Court under this Section needs to be gone into. Section 482 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- "482. 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." 32. All Courts, whether civil or criminal, in the absence of an express provision, as inherent in their constitution, possess all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquit alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). Section 482 Cr.P.C. thus, does not confer a new jurisdiction or power on the High Court. It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by it necessary to secure the ends of justice. These powers by this provision have been preserved lest it be considered that the only powers possessed by it are those which are expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent power had survived with the passing of the Code. This Section was added so that the High Courts may not feel hesitant to exercise their inherent powers even in cases where injustice was palpable and apparent in its absence. It is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely Courts of law but also Courts of justice and possess inherent powers to prevent and remove injustice. 33. It is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely Courts of law but also Courts of justice and possess inherent powers to prevent and remove injustice. 33. No legislative enactment dealing with the procedure, as exhaustive as it may be, can visualize and provide for all cases that may possibly arise. While putting into effect the procedural law, lacunae are sometimes discovered therein and it is to cover such lacunae and to deal with cases when such lacunae are discovered in the procedural law that these inherent powers are required. The Courts must, therefore, have inherent powers, apart from the express provisions of law, which are essential and necessary for their existence and for proper discharge of duties imposed upon them by law. This doctrine finds expression in Section 482 Cr.P.C. The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the Courts subordinate to it. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court preserved under this Section is vested in it by "law" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. 34. The inherent jurisdiction possessed by the High Court and as envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in three circumstances, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; and(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Under any one or more of these three circumstances, this jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court. Keeping in view the content, purpose and nature of this provision, it is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court under this Section are extraordinary in their nature and exercised ex debito justitiae, that is to say, for the purpose of doing real and substantial justice, for the administration of which the Courts of law exist. But this does not mean that these inherent powers are to be exercised where such powers have been expressly taken away by legislation and also cannot be invoked which are directly covered by the specific provisions of the legislation. If a remedy is specifically available under the Statute, High Court cannot, in such situations, invoke inherent jurisdiction. But this does not mean that these inherent powers are to be exercised where such powers have been expressly taken away by legislation and also cannot be invoked which are directly covered by the specific provisions of the legislation. If a remedy is specifically available under the Statute, High Court cannot, in such situations, invoke inherent jurisdiction. These powers are to be exercised only when there is no specific provision in the Code to meet a particular situation and only when no other remedy is available to the litigant. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised against the provisions of law but needs to be exercised only in cases where substantial justice is required to be done and that too, where any one or more of the three circumstances, as mentioned in Section 482 Cr.P.C, exist. 35. Inherent jurisdiction exists for the advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority, so as to produce injustice, the Court has the power to prevent that abuse. One of the circumstances provided in Section 482 Cr.P.C. where inherent jurisdiction can be exercised is to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, which would include abuse of process of itself as well. In the absence of such power, the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely, to promote justice and to prevent injustice. It would be an abuse of process of law to allow an order obtained by playing fraud on the Court by intentionally misstating the facts and withholding the true facts from the Court to continue to operate despite true facts come or are brought to the notice of the Court. 36. The High Court thus, has very vast powers and such powers are restricted in situations, which have been dilated above, but that do not, in any way, put fetters in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in securing the ends of justice and invoking of the same is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of that particular case. These powers, thus, cannot be cast in any inflexible rule and the discretion must be exercised by the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice which must prevail as the rule of law and dignity of the Courts is to be upheld and preserved. 37. These powers, thus, cannot be cast in any inflexible rule and the discretion must be exercised by the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice which must prevail as the rule of law and dignity of the Courts is to be upheld and preserved. 37. In the light of the above, there cannot be any doubt nor is there any challenge with regard to the power conferred on the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court is vast enough to interfere/exercise such powers which may, in the facts and circumstances of a case, be necessary to do justice. The inherent jurisdiction possessed by the High Court and as envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can broadly be said to be exercised in three circumstances, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Therefore, if all or any of the above circumstances exists or occurs, this Court can exercise its inherent powers. 38. In the light of the above observations, it is held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be filed by a Power of Attorney holder. As regards the maintainability thereof, it would dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case as also with regard to the validity of the said Power of Attorney and the powers conferred therein. It requires to be mentioned here that there is no statutory bar provided by the legislature in the Cr.P.C. relating to filing or continuing of a criminal matter through a Power of Attorney holder. The Court would generally insist that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR or a criminal complaint as also the consequential proceedings arising therefrom be filed through the accused person himself but this cannot be and should not be laid down as a hard and fast rule keeping in view the statutory mandate which by nomenclature, description and discretionary nature of powers conferred on the High Court requires it to be kept flexible. This is better left to be considered and decided by the Court dealing with the particular case in the facts and circumstances of each case as it would be impossible to envisage and think of all the circumstances in which the Court may require and like to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and powers as conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 39. We would also like to point out that filing of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an exception to general rule of criminal law that in criminal proceedings, either the accused should be available before the Court in custody or on bail, unless granted exemption. We hold that any petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. through Power of Attorney should contain special reason for non-filing of petition by accused himself or herself to enable the High Court to consider and allow the same. But if, at any stage, the High Court finds that the petition has been filed by accused through Power of Attorney with some oblique motive or the same is violative of any statute or law or is an act of abuse of process of the Court, the Court would have wide discretion to dismiss the petition filed through Power of Attorney. The High Court will have inherent power to give an opportunity to the accused to personally file the petition. 40. The view taken in the case of Amit Ahujd's case (supra) cannot be said to be correct for the reasons detailed above. 41. The questions in Reference are, thus, answered as follows:- i) Criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be filed by an accused through an Attorney but the circumstances under which it can be so filed and would be maintainable would be dependent upon various factors including facts and circumstances of that particular case, which is better left at the wisdom and discretion of the Court. ii) In the light of the answer to Question No.l mentioned above, Question No.2 does not survive to be answered as it was dependent upon the answer of Question No.l and an offshoot of the question in a particular eventuality. 42. Reference, having been answered above, this matter be put up before the appropriate Bench for decision.