The High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute the offences alleged.

The allegations contained in the complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner claims that the case insofar as he is concerned is liable to be quashed under Section 482, Criminal P.C. for short "the Code". This is the sole contention of the petitioner.

2. The contours of the jurisdiction of the High Court when it exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 of "the Code" have been set out by the Supreme Court amongst other decisions, in R.P. Kapur; AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239), Nagawwa; AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1533), Madhu Limaye; AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165) and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977 Cri LJ 1125).

3. In R.P. Kapur (supra) three categories of cases have been referred which are illustrative in nature but not exhaustive, where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding. One amongst them is that if the allegations in the complaint, even if they are accepted at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. However, it has been ruled that the High Court cannot enter into any inquiry as to the reliability of the evidence which is ordinarily the function of the trial court. In Nagawwa (supra) the Supreme Court has categorised the circumstances Under which the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 into four compartments. However, these are also illustrative. Appreciation of evidence or reliability of the evidence or re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court while exercising this power are out of bounds for the High Court. In Madhu Limaye (supra) the negative aspects have been highlighted, that is, the outer limit of the powers of the High Court have been pictured. They are :-

(a) The power should not be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress available to the aggrieved party;

(b) the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;

(c) it should not be exercised as against the express power contained in my other provisions of "the Code".

4. In Muniswamy (1977 Cri LJ 1125) (supra) the contours of the wholesome power have been set out thus :

"The saving of the High Court's inherent powers both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution…… The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature.……" (Emphasis added).

After referring to the rules laid down in R.P. Kapur (1960 Cri LJ 1239) (SC) (supra) it has been observed that the three categories of cases (referred in Kapur) where the High Court would be justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 are only illustrative, and, cannot in the very nature of things, be regarded as exhaustive. It was observed :

"Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by S.482 ought not to be encased within the strait jacket of a rigid formulae".

These principles have been structured by their Lordships to achieve the salutary public purpose. Criminal proceedings should not be permitted to be degenerated into a weapon of harassment or a weapon of revenge. Apart from upholding the cause of justice amongst the contending parties thesectionensures speedy trial and thereby upholds societal interest. The cases which must fail on the face of the available material need be terminated to grant relief to the accused. It wipes out backlog of cases. The genuine cases obtain precedence over cases having no merits. In terminating th