The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking recall of arrest warrants and proclamation under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that the petitioner willfully failed to appear despite multiple summonses and extensions, making the case unfit for exercising inherent powers.
None. The petition for recall of arrest warrants was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010008012019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 43/2019
1:JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O MOSRAF ALI, PERMANENT R/O PIALIKHATA, PO BAIHATA CHARIALI, PS CHANGSARI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM-781381 PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, BADARPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK, KARIMGANJ, ASSAM-788806
VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY PP, ASSAM
2:T. PATOR ACS TELAHI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-787052 PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
ORDER
Date : 11-01-2019
Page No.# 3/7
Court passed in B.A. No. 4887/2009, an application under Section 438 CrPC preferred by the petitioner, he surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur on 04.02.2010 and prayed for his bail in said North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 517/2009 and the learned CJM, North Lakhimpur by his order dated 04.02.2010 granted him ad-interim bail in the said Case. But as he did not appear in the matter on the dates fixed, learned Magistrate issued NBWA against him on 07.04.2010 fixing 13.04.2010 for his appearance. On 13.04.2010 petitioner did not appear before the said Magistrate and on 17.04.2010 he filed an application for extension of his ad-interim bail, without appearing in the matter. As such, learned Magistrate by his order dated 17.04.2010 rejected the said application of the petitioner and issued order of NBWA against him.
Page No.# 4/7
bailor/surety of the petitioner in said Panigaon P.S. Case (earlier North Lakhimpur PS Case).
Page No.# 5/7
remained absent with step, which he continued to do till 07.01.2016. As he remained absent without any step in the said G R Case, the learned Trial Magistrate on 16.02.2016 issued the order of NBWA against the petitioner for his appearance and also similar orders thereafter.
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.
We may also note that wide extraordinary power of quashing vested in the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and with caution and not to stifle legitimate prosecution. Such a power is required to be exercised in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence and it is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle of “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
Page No.# 6/7
administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. It is well settled that Section 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 the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Page No.# 7/7
the petitioner, namely, Jakir Hussain, by the learned Trial Magistrate in the said G R Case No. 669/2013, the proceeding of which is presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to recall arrest warrants against an accused who repeatedly failed to appear in court despite granted extensions.
Whether the petitioner's conduct of non-appearance justifies the exercise of extraordinary judicial powers to quash the order of arrest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jakir Hussain
The State of Assam
Manash Ranjan Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
