CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter here concerns the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), in the context of the provisions of Section 397(3) thereof. It comes up on a reference to a larger Bench by S.S. Grewal, J. The substantial question of law, of undoubted public importance raised being :- "Whether the provisions of S.397(3) would operate, or, constitute a total, or, complete bar to the exercise or inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even in cases, where, it is necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, or, otherwise to secure the ends of justice ?"

(2.) The legislature while providing for revision under S.397 of the Code and conferring jurisdiction thereby upon the High Court as also the Court of Session, proceeded to enact a specific bar against a second revision by the provisions of Sub-Section (3) thereof, which reads as under : "If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." There are, at the same time, vested in the High Court, inherent powers preserved for it by S.482 of the Code, which is in these terms :- "Saving of inherent powers of High Court :- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

(3.) This clear and apparent legislative intent, as expressed by the opening words of S.482. "Nothing in this Code ........" of the inherent powers of the High Court thereunder, not in any manner being curtailed or affected by the bar contained in S.397, has, however, got dragged into the arena of controversy by some judicial pronouncements tending to express a somewhat contrary view.