1. The Court in the instance of Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana. once more stated the rule sing the exercising of the built-in powers conferred by Sec. 482. Cr. P. C: “It ought to be realised that built-in powers do non confabulate an arbitrary legal power on the High Court to move harmonizing to caprice or impulse. That statutory power has to be exercised meagerly. with discretion and in the rarest of rare instances. ”
2. In the instance of Raj Kapoor and Oregons v. State. “Even so. a general rule pervades this subdivision of jurisprudence when a specific proviso is made: easy resort to built-in power is non right except under obliging fortunes. Not that there is absence of legal power. but that built-in power should non occupy countries set apart for specific power under the same Code. ”
3. Smt Nagawwa v. Veeranna. “It is hence obviously clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial phases can be quashed merely if on the face of the ailment or the documents attach toing the same. no offense is constituted. In other words. the trial is that taking the allegations and the ailment as they are. without adding or deducting anything. if no offense is made out so the High Court will be justified in repressing the proceedings in exercising of its power under Sec. 482 of the present Code. ”
4. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Oregons. V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Oregons. “The legal place is to be good settled that when a prosecution at the initial phase is asked to be quashed. the trial to be applied by the tribunal is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made Prima facie set up the offense. It is besides for the tribunal to take into consideration any particular characteristics which appear in a peculiar instance to see whether it is expedient and in the Interest of justness to allow a prosecution to go on. This is so on the footing that the tribunal opportunities of an ultimate strong belief are black and. hence. no utile intent is likely to be served by leting a condemnable prosecution to go on. the tribunal may while taking into onsideration the particular facts af a instance besides quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary phase. ”
5. State of Haryanav. Bhajan Lal An thorough list of countless families of instances wherein such a power should be exercised: ( 1 ) Where allegations made in the FIR. even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entireness do non prima faci constitute any offense or do out a instance against the accused. ( 2 ) Where the allegations in the FIR and other stuffs. if any. attach toing the FIR do non unwrap a knowable offense. warranting an probe by constabulary officers under Sec. 156 ( 1 ) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the horizon of Sec. 155 ( 2 ) of the Code. ( 3 ) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ailment and the grounds collected in support of the same do non unwrap the committee of any offense and do out a instance against the accused. ( 4 ) Where the allegations in the FIR do non represent a knowable offense but constitute merely a non-cognizable offense. no probe is permitted by a constabulary officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155 ( 2 ) of the Code.
( 5 ) Where the allegations made in the FIR or ailment are so absurd and inherently amprobable on the footing of which no prudent individual can of all time make ajust decision that there is sufficient land for continuing against the accused. ( 6 ) Where there ia an express legal saloon engrafted in any of the commissariats of the Code or the concerned Act ( under which a felon proceeding is instituted ) to the establishment and continuation of the proceedings and/or where there is specific proviso in the Code or the concerned Act. supplying efficacious damages for the grudge of the aggrieved party. ( 7 ) Where a condemnable proceeding is obviously attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an subterranean motivation for bringing retribution on the accused and with a position to hurt him due to private and personal score.
6. Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary. The condemnable tribunals are clothed with built-in power to do such orders as may be necessary for the terminals of justness. Such power though unrestricted and vague should non be freakishly or randomly exercised. but should be exercised in appropriate instances. ex debito justitiae to make existent and significant justness for the disposal of which alone the tribunals exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code are really broad and the really plenty of the power requires great cautiousness in its exercising. 7. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
“It is good settled that Sec. 482 does non confabulate any new power on the High Court but merely saves the built-in power which the Court possessed before the passage of the Code. There are three fortunes under which the built-in legal power may be exercised. viz. . ( I ) to give consequence to an order under Code. ( two ) to forestall maltreatment of the procedure of tribunal. ( three ) to otherwise procure the terminals ofjustice. ”