Tanneru Ram Babu vs State of A.P.

R. Kantha Rao, J.—All these petitions have been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the orders passed by the Courts below on the applications filed under various provisions in Chapter XXXIV of Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the disposal of the property, such as, under Sections 451 Code of Criminal Procedure, 457 Code of Criminal Procedure etc.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

Since this Court initially wants to adjudicate upon the question as to whether this Court by exercising inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is supposed to entertain these petitions, the merits of each and every individual case have not been gone into and the order is confined only to the maintainability, desirability and propriety of the Court to entertain an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure when the remedies under specific provisions of law are available to the Petitioners.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in all these cases tried to impress upon the Court that even alternative remedy under some other provision is available, this Court can grant relief by exercising its inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and they submitted that the petitions can be entertained and be disposed of.

Some criminal petitions have come to the notice of this Court wherein jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked despite there are specific remedies available under different provisions of law. The question which this Court takes up for consideration is not that the Court has no power or jurisdiction to dispose of these petitions and some other petitions of similar nature. But this Court wants to examine the desirability and the justification in entertaining this kind of applications by exercising inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. Indisputably this Court can exercise inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure despite some other remedy is provided for the applicants under the other provisions of law. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also placed some decisions of the Apex Court and this Court which are to the effect that even when an alternative remedy is available to a party, he can still invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is absolutely no quarrel to the said proposition of law.

As I have already mentioned, the crucial issue is that in view of the fact that extraordinary inherent powers possessed by this Court, is it appropriate on the part of the Court to entertain the applications which could have rightly been filed under some other provisions of law where a specific remedy has been provided. This Court is not supposed to entertain such applications as a matter of routine as per the settled legal position expounded by the Apex Court.

I would like to refer the judgments of the Apex Court which lay down the parameters justifying invoking inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

In Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Apex Court held as follows:

It is true that u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence. High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedalled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial.

The order passed by the High Court, entertaining the petition of the convicted accused u/s 482 of the Code is, on the face of it, illegal, erroneous and to say the least, unfortunate. It was known to the High Court that the trial Court passed proceedings to the effect that final judgment and order convicting the accused were pronounced by the trial Court. It was also recorded by the trial Court that as the accused were absent, the Court had issued non-bailable warrants. In such a situation, instead of directing the accused to remain present before the Court for resorting to the steps contemplated by the law for passing the sentence, the High Court has stayed further proceedings including the operation of the non-bailable warrants issued by the trial Court. It is disquieting that the High Court has overlooked the important legal aspect that accused have a right of appeal against the order of conviction purported to have been passed by the trial Court. In such circumstances the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition u/s 482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made certain allegations against the trial Judge the substantive law cannot be bypassed.

In State of Gujarat Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and Others, the Apex Court held as follows:

The High Court has also invoked powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure while granting bail to the Respondents. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court. The High Court possesses the inherent powers to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do the real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The power has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. But this power cannot be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. See Madhu Limaye v. State of maharashtra. There being a specific provision for grant of bail, the High Court clearly erred in taking recourse to Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure while enlarging the Respondents on bail.

In Hamida v. Rashid Alias Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 the accused were granted bail by the trial Court for the alleged offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC, on the same day they were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking remand on the ground that subsequent to grant of bail, one of the victim succumbed to the injuries and the offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC, the accused filed a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to permit them to remain on the same bail even after conversion of the offence into one u/s 304 IPC. The High Court allowed the petition by the impugned order.

In the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the Respondents-accused could have applied for bail afresh after the offence, had been converted into one u/s 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. No order adverse to the accused Respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the high Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence u/s 304 IPC. The procedure laid down for grant of bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, though available to the accused Respondents, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside.

In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, the Apex Court laid down law on the subject as follows:

UNDOUBTEDLY, the High Court possesses inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These inherent powers of the High Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, of to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Inherent power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in following category of cases:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

This court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The court would be justified in exercising the power when it is imperative to exercise the power in order to prevent injustice. In order to understand the nature and scope of power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure it has become necessary, to recapitulate the ratio of the decided cases.

Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the court''s extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice.

In the cases on hand, the applications filed by the Petitioners seeking return of property to their interim custody have been dismissed. The orders therein being final, a remedy to approach the court of revision for appropriate relief is available to them. When their applications have been dismissed by the trial Court, without availing the alternative remedy, they cannot straightaway approach this Court with a prayer to exercise inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. There may be cases where Courts have invoked inherent powers of extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure despite availability of alternative remedy. But in those cases, the powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure were exercised as the facts and circumstances warrant exercise of the said powers. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioners may illustrate some instances under which Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been invoked even though alternative remedy was available. But the said decisions do not lay down the ratio as to when and under what circumstances the power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised. The question is not as to whether the court can redress a particular grievance in exercise of its power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure The core issue requires thorough examination in the present petitions is that whether the aggrieved party whenever he was refused a remedy by the court below, can approach this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure without having recourse to the remedies available under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my considered view, entertaining such applications like the present ones u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine way is unwarranted and unjustified. If the aggrieved parties are permitted such a course, they invariably invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure without pursuing their remedies under specific provisions available to them under the Code. The circumstances justifying exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure must be such that unless such power is exercised, it is not possible to prevent abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice. Before I conclude, I deem it appropriate to extract the following words of the Supreme Court in HAMIDA case (3rd cited supra).

The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice.

In all the present cases, there are alternative efficacious remedies provided for under the Code. The Petitioners are not supposed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure deliberately not availing the alternative remedies available under the specific provisions of the Code which are very much available to them. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for each and every grievance by intentionally omitting to pursue the other remedies available to the Petitioners under the Code has to be curtailed, the reason being permitting the parties to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in a casual and routine manner by deliberately avoiding to seek the relief under appropriate provisions of the Code itself would amount to abuse of the process of Court and law. Whenever the lower Court declines to grant the relief prayed for, it can not be said that such order invariably results in miscarriage of justice unless the High Court is thoroughly convinced that non-exercise of inherent powers would inevitably result in miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law it would be quite inappropriate to grant the relief by exercising inherent power in a mechanical way thinking that it has got the requisite power to grant the relief u/s 482 of the Code.

For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petitions are dismissed without going into the merits and giving the Petitioners liberty to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum under the specific provisions which provide remedies to them under the Code.