Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 886 (ALL)

Vertika Chitravanshi v. State of U. P.

2021-08-16

Y.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Stateopposite party. 2. The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[The Code] has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar in Case No.1167 of 2020 (Apurva Saxena v. Smt. Vartika Chitravanshi), in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[HMA], whereby a direction was issued to proceed ex parte and a date was fixed for evidence. 3. The previous order dated 04.08.2021 indicates that a preliminary objection had been raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate to the effect that provisions of section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to quash proceedings of a civil nature, and accordingly the relief sought by means of the present application to quash the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, in proceedings under section 9 of the HMA, cannot be granted. 4. In order to examine as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code, may be invoked to seek quashing of the order passed in proceedings under the HMA, the provisions contained under section 482 of the Code are required to be adverted to. Section 482 of the Code 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." 5. Section 482 of the Code envisages three situations under which the inherent powers of the High Court may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, or (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 6. The inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide, is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. 6. The inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide, is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. The powers are to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. 7. Section 482 of the Code provides for saving of the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. The invocation of inherent powers of the High Court, therefore, can be made in respect of proceedings pending before or disposed of by Criminal Courts and such powers cannot ordinarily be exercised in relation to orders passed by an authority not functioning under the Code or in respect of proceedings which are not criminal proceedings in a Court. 9. Referring to Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the new Code) the Privy Council in Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18 , held that the said section does not give to the High Court any increased powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess, shall be preserved. It was stated thus : "It has sometimes been thought that Section 561A has given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act." 10. It is, therefore, seen that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 can be invoked only to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is, therefore, seen that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 can be invoked only to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers are coextensive with the text of the Code and may be exercised only in respect of any of the matters covered by the Code. The expression “any Court” under the section would refer to a Criminal Court. The language and the phraseology used under the section make it clear that the powers are to be exercised in relation to proceedings pending before or disposed of by a Criminal Court and such powers would not be exercisable in relation to an order passed by an authority not functioning under the Code or in respect of proceedings which are not criminal proceedings. 11. Applying the aforestated principles, in the facts of the present case, the order dated 25.03.2021 having been passed in proceedings under section 9 of the HMA, it would not be open to the applicant to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that he does not dispute to the aforesaid legal position with regard to the ambit and scope of exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. He accordingly submits that he does not wish to press the application. 13. The application stands accordingly dismissed.