1.The Court in the case of Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, again stated the principle regarding the exercise of the inherent powers conferred by Sec. 482, Cr. P. C : “It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.”
2.In the case of Raj Kapoor and ors v. State, “Even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made : easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction, but that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code.”
3. Smt Nagawwa v. Veeranna. “It is therefore manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its power under Sec. 482 of the present Code.”
4. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and ors. V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and ors. “The legal position is to be well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the Interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into onsideration the special facts af a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
5.State of Haryanav. Bhajan Lal An exhaustive list of myriad kins of cases 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 entirety do not prima faci constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police 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 complaint are so absurd and inherently amprobable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach ajust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there ia an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
6. Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. 7. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
“It is well settled that Sec. 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, (iii) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice.”