Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1577 - HC - Indian LawsInvocation of power of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - failing to secure the Petitioner's right to an adequate representation, under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, read with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 - HELD THAT:- It is well established principle of law that the High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae - to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. A seven-Judge Bench in the case of P. RAMACHANDRA RAO VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA [2002 (4) TMI 962 - SUPREME COURT] laid down the principles for exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where the Court was convinced that such exercise was necessary in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. The position of law that is crystallised, in light of the aforementioned judgments, is that jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases. Hence, what is only required to be seen is whether there has been an abuse of process or that the interest of justice requires the exercise of the jurisdiction. Having delineated the scope of the powers of the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, and applying the same to the case at hand, it is evident that there is no such relief that can be granted as is being prayed for. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned ASJ - the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to give special treatment to the petitioner by facilitating physical meetings for him with his counsel. Inherent powers of the Court are meant to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, however the petitioner under the garb of the liberty to approach the Court under the said provision is attempting to commit gross misuse of process. The provision of the Code that is meant to secure the ends of justice cannot be otherwise subverted to circumvent the scheme of the Code. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any cogent reason or any substantial ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant the relief that is being sought by the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
|