The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be used to ensure justice and prevent the abuse of court processes, even if a revisional remedy under Section 397 was available.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A stated that the availability of a revisional remedy does not completely prevent the court from exercising its inherent powers. The judge emphasised that the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked when there is an abuse of the court’s processes or to secure justice.
In the case at hand, the petitioner owned a truck that was rented out to the first accused through an agreement. The truck’s original registration certificate was also given to the first accused for operating the vehicle. However, it was later discovered that the ownership of the truck had been fraudulently transferred to the third respondent using false documents, and the first accused failed to pay the rent. The petitioner filed a complaint, resulting in the police seizing the vehicle. The petitioner sought the release of the seized truck under Section 451 of the CrPC but was denied because the original registration certificate was not produced and the vehicle was seized from the third respondent’s possession, not the petitioner’s.
Unhappy with this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court to challenge the dismissal. The petitioner’s advocate argued that since the basis of the complaint was the fraudulent transfer of the vehicle through forged documents, it was impossible to obtain the original registration certificate. They also argued that the interim custody of the vehicle should not be denied to the petitioner solely because it was not seized from their possession.
The advocate representing the third respondent argued against the maintainability of the petition, claiming that the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 could not be invoked in this case because an order passed under Section 451 is subject to revision under Section 397. They cited various precedents, including the Bayyarapu Suresh Babu v. State of Andra Pradesh case, to support their argument.
However, the High Court disagreed with the observation made in the Bayyarapu Suresh Babu case. While clarifying that orders barred from revisional jurisdiction cannot be challenged using inherent powers, the court noted that in this case, the challenge against invoking inherent powers is not due to a bar on revisional jurisdiction, but rather due to the availability of the revisional remedy.
After considering all relevant aspects, the judge concluded that there should not be an absolute restriction on invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 simply because the remedy of revision is available. The powers under Section 482 can be used to address cases of court process abuse or to ensure justice.
The court also observed that although the petitioner had the option to file a revision under Section 397, the fact that the petition had already been admitted and was nearing the final stages of consideration meant that dismissing it on technical grounds and directing the petitioner to pursue the revision remedy would only prolong the proceedings.
