The High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are limited to preventing abuse of the process and cannot be used to dismiss charges if valid legal remedies are available.

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the 6th accused in C.C No.2567 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. In the aforesaid case, he, along with the rest of the accused, is facing prosecution for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 323, 325, 326, and 34 of the IPC.

2. The law was set in motion based on an information furnished by a certain Viswanathan Nair. In the statement given by him before the police, it is alleged that on 27.8.2015 at about 8 p.m., while he was coming back from a shop after purchasing household items, the accused trespassed into the house of the informant and attacked him. It is also alleged that when the wife attempted to prevent the accused from attacking the informant, she was also attacked. Based on the above information, a crime was registered on 28.8.2015, and later a final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

3. The petitioner states that though he has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR, when the final report was laid, his name was not included. Later, based on a request made by the informant before the District Police Chief, further investigation was ordered, and permission was sought from the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, after several years of the registration of the crime, the investigating officer has submitted a supplementary report wherein the petitioner herein has been added as the 6th accused. The petitioner asserts that there are civil suits pending between the de facto complainant and the 8th accused in respect of a way. It is contended that with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner herein that in the supplementary report, the petitioner has been roped in as an additional accused. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) SCC (Cr) 426] and it is contended that this is a fit case warranting the exercise of powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions. It is submitted that it is based on a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant after the submission of the final report that further investigation was ordered. It is submitted by referring to the First Information Statement as well as the statement of the injured witness that the petitioner was present at the scene of crime, and specific overt acts are also alleged.

5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

6. The question, however, is when and under what situation the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial. In this context, it will be relevant to remind of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and to bring about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. Though the High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to s