Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Hariman Negi v. Parma Nand - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Rakesh Awasthi VS Ritesh Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Subho Ram Kalita (Deceased by L. R. s) and others VS Dharmeswar Das Koch and others - Gauhati"]- ["Ezhuthachan National Academy VS R. Gopinathan Nair - Kerala"]- ["BISHNU PRASAD SHARMA VS KHARGA SINGH RAI - Sikkim"]- ["Lingamsetti Babu Rao VS State of A. P. , Rep. By Its PP Hyd. - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["MANATTU RAJEEVAN Vs RESHMA M. - Kerala"]- ["Bishnu Prasad Sharma VS Kharga Singh Rai - Crimes"]- ["Kirat Pal Singh Dhilon VS State of U. P. Thru Sec. Urban Dept - Allahabad"]
In the complex interplay between civil and criminal jurisprudence in India, a common query arises: whether u/s 151 Civil Procedure Code is applicable in criminal courts in the matter of inherent power. This question often surfaces when litigants seek procedural relief in criminal matters where statutory remedies seem inadequate. Understanding this provision's scope is crucial for lawyers, litigants, and courts to ensure justice without overstepping legal boundaries.
Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of courts to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court process. While primarily a civil code provision, its application in criminal courts has been debated and clarified through landmark judgments. This post delves into the nuances, key cases, limitations, and practical insights, drawing from authoritative sources.
Section 151 CPC states: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. These powers are supplementary, not a substitute for specific statutory provisions. Doma Choudhary VS Ram Naresh Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(Pat) 177
Courts have consistently held that inherent powers under Section 151 are available where:- No explicit remedy exists in the CPC or other statutes.- Invocation is essential to do justice or avert miscarriage. State of U. P. etc. VS Roshan Singh - 2008 1 Supreme 290
However, they cannot override express provisions or extend to substantive rights, remaining largely procedural. Manohar Lal Chopra VS Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 364
The Supreme Court has affirmed limited applicability in criminal contexts. In Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers, the Court observed that the provisions of the CPC are not exhaustive, and the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are available to prevent abuse of process and to do justice in cases not covered by specific provisions. Doma Choudhary VS Ram Naresh Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(Pat) 177
Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Roshan Singh, it was reiterated that inherent powers are to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where no specific statutory provision or remedy exists, confined to procedural matters. State of U. P. etc. VS Roshan Singh - 2008 1 Supreme 290
In criminal courts, Section 151 may be invoked for relief like staying proceedings or curbing abuse, but only absent statutory alternatives under the CrPC. Talab Haji Hussain VS Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar - 1958 0 Supreme(SC) 8Indrawati Devi VS Bulu Ghosh - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 30
The powers typically address procedural gaps, such as dismissing suits for default or granting temporary stays where no other mechanism fits. For instance, courts have used them to prevent miscarriage in exceptional criminal scenarios. Ramji Giri VS Elaichi Devi - 1974 0 Supreme(Pat) 24
Exercise of inherent powers demands caution. Key restrictions include:- Specific remedies bar invocation: If CrPC or other laws provide explicit relief, Section 151 cannot bypass them. State of U. P. etc. VS Roshan Singh - 2008 1 Supreme 290- No substantive rights: Limited to procedural issues, not deciding core rights. Manohar Lal Chopra VS Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 364- Exceptional use only: Sparingly, to avoid conflict with statutes. Doma Choudhary VS Ram Naresh Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(Pat) 177
Civil courts lack inherent power under Section 151 to initiate criminal prosecutions; that's reserved for Section 340 CrPC. In a case where a civil court did so for violating an undertaking, the court held: The civil court does not have inherent power to direct criminal prosecution, and the specific power is given under S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Anitha VS Bava - 1992 Supreme(Ker) 485
High Courts possess analogous powers under Section 482 CrPC, but subordinate criminal courts do not mirror Section 151's breadth. One judgment notes: Code of Criminal Procedure does contain a provision for inherent power viz., Sec.561-A which however, confers these powers on the High Court and the High Court alone unlike Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers. S. Balasubramaninan VS State of Tamil Nadu rep - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 1954
In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, inherent powers to strike off defense are unavailable, distinguishing civil-criminal contexts: Section 151 Cr.P.C provides the saving of all inherent powers of the Court... It was not applicable to the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. MANATTU RAJEEVAN Vs RESHMA M. - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4646
Stays of civil suits pending criminal cases aren't granted via Section 151 unless Section 10 CPC conditions apply: A money suit cannot be stayed pending the disposal of a criminal case on the same subject matter unless the conditions for a stay under Section 10, C.P.C. are satisfied. Atul Chandra Bora VS Assam Tea Brokers Pvt. Ltd. , Gauhati - 1995 Supreme(Gau) 52
Even in special acts like Arbitration, CPC provisions including Section 151 apply procedurally but cannot violate express rules. V. Pundarikakshudu Sons a partnership firm, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Madava Rao VS Union of India, rep. By the Chief Engineer Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chennai & Another - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3810
Section 151's role extends to undoing wrongs, like restoring status quo after injunction violations: Courts have inherent power to undo the wrong committed by violators of injunction orders and to restore status quo ante. DIPTI RANJAN SAHOO VS NALINI KUMARI SAHOO - 2010 Supreme(Ori) 726
In dismissal for non-prosecution, it's exercised judiciously: Relying on Shipping Corporation, courts assess facts before invoking to prevent abuse. Apollo Tyres Ltd. VS Transport Corporation of India - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 204Apollo Tyres Ltd. VS Transport Corporation of India - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 205
Time extensions for court fees also fall under it, beyond Section 148 limits: The Court has an inherent power u/s 151, C.P.C. to extend the time. Amar Nath Gupta VS District Judge - 2006 Supreme(All) 3380
Under family laws like Hindu Marriage Act, courts as civil forums retain these powers for injunctions on matrimonial obligations. Pratiksha VS Pravin - 2001 Supreme(MP) 620
Section 10 CPC doesn't apply to non-suits, barring Section 151 stays in tenancy disputes. R. Subramanian VS Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukkoil, Palani, through its Administrative Officer - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 800
Courts should exercise sparingly, aligning with precedents to uphold consistency.
Generally, Section 151 CPC may apply in criminal courts for inherent powers in narrow, procedural scenarios where no statutory remedy exists—to secure justice or curb abuse. However, its use is tightly circumscribed, especially against CrPC's framework. Cases like Shipping CorporationDoma Choudhary VS Ram Naresh Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(Pat) 177 and Roshan SinghState of U. P. etc. VS Roshan Singh - 2008 1 Supreme 290 guide this balance.
Key Takeaways:- Supplementary, not overriding.- Procedural only; exceptional circumstances.- Subordinate criminal courts limited; High Courts via Section 482.
This post provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
References:- Doma Choudhary VS Ram Naresh Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(Pat) 177, State of U. P. etc. VS Roshan Singh - 2008 1 Supreme 290, Manohar Lal Chopra VS Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 364, Indrawati Devi VS Bulu Ghosh - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 30, Anitha VS Bava - 1992 Supreme(Ker) 485, Atul Chandra Bora VS Assam Tea Brokers Pvt. Ltd. , Gauhati - 1995 Supreme(Gau) 52, MANATTU RAJEEVAN Vs RESHMA M. - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4646, S. Balasubramaninan VS State of Tamil Nadu rep - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 1954, DIPTI RANJAN SAHOO VS NALINI KUMARI SAHOO - 2010 Supreme(Ori) 726, Apollo Tyres Ltd. VS Transport Corporation of India - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 204, Apollo Tyres Ltd. VS Transport Corporation of India - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 205, Amar Nath Gupta VS District Judge - 2006 Supreme(All) 3380, Pratiksha VS Pravin - 2001 Supreme(MP) 620, R. Subramanian VS Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukkoil, Palani, through its Administrative Officer - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 800, V. Pundarikakshudu Sons a partnership firm, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Madava Rao VS Union of India, rep. By the Chief Engineer Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chennai & Another - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3810
#Section151CPC, #InherentPowers, #CriminalLawIndia
The provisions of S.482, Cr.P.C. closely resemble S.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter called the 'CPC'), and, therefore, the restrictions which are there to use the inherent powers under S.151, CPC are applicable in exercise of powers under S.482, Cr.P.C. and one such restriction is ... Under the garb of exercising inherent powers, the Criminal Court cannot review its judgment. Such powers are anal....
The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. closely resemble Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter called the ‘CPC'), and, therefore, the restrictions which are there to use the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are applicable in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and one ... Under the garb of exercising inherent powers, the Criminal Court cannot review its judgment. Such powers are ana....
The premise in the question referred to is that the above circumstances are not satisfied, which means that S.10, C.P.C. is not applicable. ... 9. S.151, C.P.C. saves the inherent power of the Court. ... Koonwarjee, AIR 1970 SC 997 while exercising the inherent power under S.151, C.P.C. a Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by the Code. ... When th....
This is a case where civil court has initiated criminal prosecution against a party - litigant in a civil litigation. The question raised is whether the civil court has inherent power to initiate criminal proceedings under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... The position that emerges from the above discussion is this: The civil court is given power to initiate criminal pros....
State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 218], the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC for the purpose of appointing Advocate Commissioner. ... According to the learned Senior Counsel, the trial Court proceeded on the basis that Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to a proceeding under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the question of invoking the inherent jurisdiction....
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that Section 10, C.P.C., is not applicable; the Lower Court ought to have invoked its inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C., and to have stayed the trial of the Suit. ... Therefore, in my considered opinion, Section 10, C.P.C, is not at all applicable. ... 12. The next question is whether the Civil Court can invoke i....
In that case it is the discretionary power of the High Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to examine whether the abuse of process of court is apparent in the facts as well as in law and whether to secure end of justice invocation of courts inherent jurisdiction is required. ... Both Sections 151, C.P.C. and 482 Cr.P.C. save by expressly preserving to the court inherent power ....
The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties-before it. ... and the Court which is taking the cognizance in the matter is primarily a Civil Court which is sufficiently vested with the inherent powers. ... Section 151 itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise aff....
In fact, Jayasree's case was referred to in Sakeer Hussain's case and it was held that, Division Bench in Jayasree's case was referring to inherent power under section 151 C.P.C. It was not applicable to the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. ... Section 151 Cr.P.C provides the saving of all inherent powers of the Court. The Court possess always inherent power apart from the specified powers gi....
Court and the High Court alone and that unlike section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers Mr. ... a legislative recognition of the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and that this inherent power is in no sense restricted in application to civil cases: it is equally applicable#....
“Code of Criminal Procedure does contain a provision for inherent power viz., Sec.561-A which however, confers these powers on the High Court and the High Court alone unlike Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers”. Inherent powers have only been given to High Court and relied on a decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 2432 (Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs Kali Singh),wherein the Apex Court has held
With regard to the question as to whether the inherent power u/s 151, CPC can be exercised in an application under Order 39, Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure. by directing the alleged violators (Defendants) to vacate the suit residential house for restoring status quo ante, has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and another. The Supreme Court in the said case, though not, was considering a case specifically under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC but examined the doctrine that a cont....
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. - Vs Machado Brothers reported in AIR 2004 SC 2093, wherein Supreme Court explained the inherent power of the Court u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. - Vs – Machado Brothers reported in AIR 2004 SC 2093, wherein Supreme Court explained the inherent power of the Court u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court has an inherent power u/s 151, C.P.C. to extend the time. In the present case, the plea of financial constraints on the part of the appellant has nowhere been considered by the court below nor any finding has been given that the appellant had the requisite resources to pay the court fee and that he was seeking time in order to delay the execution of the decree. 9. From the aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that the upper limit fixed u/s 148 of the Act cannot take away the inherent powers of the Court to pass an order as may be necessary for the ends of Justice. In....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
