Section 482 CRPC And Its Inherent Jurisdiction: Insights From The Recent Supreme Court Ruling

Posted On - 9 June, 2025 • By - Gaurav Singh Gaur

Introduction

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers High Courts with inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process and secure justice. Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that High Courts cannot rely on investigation reports while considering such quashing petitions under this provision.

Understanding Section 482 CrPC

Inherent Powers of High Courts

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers the inherent powers of the High Courts to pass such orders as are justifiable to: (i) give effect to any order in the Code; (ii) prevent abuse of the process of any court or (iii) secure the ends of justice. It does not bestow new powers but preserves the powers which the High Courts already possess to intervene as and when required.

Historical Evolution

The Hon’ble Supreme Court first clarified the scope of inherent jurisdiction of High Courts in the year 1960, listing three such cases:

  • Where there is a legal bar to the institution or continuation of proceedings.
  • Where the FIR or complaint fails to disclose an offence.
  • Where there is no legal evidence or where the evidence manifestly does not support the claims.

They were embodied in 1977 in three broad categories that still guide courts:

  • To give effect to an order under the CrPC.
  • To prevent abuse of the court process.
  • To secure the ends of justice.

Purpose and Application

  • High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with mala fide motives or to harass a person, thereby avoiding procedural harassment.
  • It empowers courts to dismiss the FIRs or criminal proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the accused.
  • Courts can set aside orders illegally made or outside jurisdiction, especially in violation of natural justice rules.
  • The exercise of such power under Section 482 is discretionary and varies from case to case.

Quashing of FIR – Bhajan Lal Guidelines

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court laid down model categories in which the FIRs can be quashed[1]:

  • When the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence.
  • When the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence warranting police investigation.
  • When evidence submitted does not support the accusations.
  • When only a non-cognizable offence is made out and no prior Magistrate’s approval was sought.
  • When the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd.
  • When criminal proceedings are barred by law or where alternative remedies exist.
  • When the criminal complaint is filed with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives.

Further Clarification in 2017:

  • The Supreme Court once again asserted that Section 482 is an acknowledgement of powers inherent and not a source of powers additional.
  • It believed that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed where necessary.
  • High Courts have to decide whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of justice.
  • Grievous offenses such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be quashed even after settlement because they involve greater social implications.

Parallel Provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 528

  • Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, retains the spirit of Section 482 CrPC.
  • It asserts that nothing in the BNSS inhibits or encroaches on the inherent powers of the High Court.
  • It enacts that inherent powers can be used to: (i) give effect to any such order under the Sanhita; (ii) prevent abuse of court process; and (iii) secure the ends of justice. Similar to Section 482, it does not grant new powers but only recognises the inherent power of the High Courts.

The Recent SC Decision

Recently, on 1st May, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another, emphasized the restricted scope of the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), i.e., in the light of its jurisdiction to entertain reports of investigation while quashing an FIR.[2] The ruling made it clear that these reports were for the Magistrate alone and not for the High Court.

Background of the Case

Appellant Ashok Kumar Jain, Director of “Maayu Import and Export Ltd.” in Sri Lanka, was accused by the second respondent, who runs “Ansh Prints” in Surat, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The second respondent alleged that sarees worth Rs. 34,71,344/- were exported to the appellant through an intermediary, M/s. Oswal Overseas, from October 2013 to March 2014, but payment was not made in spite of repeated requests. The FIR, C.R. No. I-06 of 2017, was filed on January 3, 2017.

The appellant approached the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR, submitting the dispute was civil in nature, pertaining to unpaid consideration of sale, and no elements of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were attracted. He submitted that the goods were supplied to M/s. Oswal Overseas, which exported the goods, meaning there was no direct privity of contract with him for the crimes. The High Court, however, dismissed the application, noting the appellant had misrepresented and induced the respondent to deliver the goods and the offences were made out.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

Granting leave, the Supreme Court considered the High Court order as well as the submissions with careful thought. The Court relied on the settled legal position in the case of quashing of FIRs, referring to State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty[3] and Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[4], which enunciate that quashing of an FIR must be an exception, exercised judiciously and cautiously, and that courts must not go into a mini-trial or trial of evidence at this juncture.

Most significantly, the bench reaffirmed that High Courts cannot consider or act on investigation reports while adjudicating petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The Court specifically mentioned the settled jurisprudence in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi[5], wherein it was “clearly held that investigation reports can neither be called for nor placed reliance upon by the High Court in proceedings under Section 482.” The Court further added that “the report of the investigating agency cannot be placed reliance upon by the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code.”

Interpreting the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 IPC as per several key precedents, the Court held that the charges in the FIR, when placed on their documentary evidence (Annexures P1 to P3), did not justify the criminal charges. The Court observed that the “entrustment was made to M/s. Oswal Overseas by respondent no. 2 and not to the appellant.” It observed that the respondent’s attempt at pleading an oral agreement against the export documents was not persuasive.

The Court held that failure to pay the sale price was a civil dispute between the appellant and M/s. Oswal Overseas. Allowing further pursuit of FIR against the appellant would constitute abuse of the process of law. The Court observed that interference at the investigational level would jeopardize the proper administration of justice if interference is on grounds extraneous to the FIR and uncontroverted facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed FIR.

Conclusion

Section 482 CrPC serves as a vital safeguard against abuse of the criminal justice process, empowering High Courts to intervene judiciously to prevent harassment and secure justice without conducting full trials. Rooted in long-established principles and reinforced by guidelines like Bhajan Lal, it balances protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law. The recent Supreme Court ruling further clarifies this balance by restricting reliance on investigation reports, ensuring that quashing remains a cautious tool, used sparingly to maintain judicial discipline and procedural fairness.

[1] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

[2] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/4673/4673_2022_15_1501_61272_Judgement_01-May-2025.pdf.

[3] State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, (2022) 16 SCC 703.

[4] Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35.

[5] Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com