0

What constitutes inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has not been laid down as the Code is silent on this issue.: Meghalaya High Court

The High Court has got ample power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction when it comes to righting a wrong for securing ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court as held by the High Court of Meghalaya through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the case of Shri Kitbok Rymbai Vs. State of Meghalaya & 3 Ors. (Crl.Petn. No. 1 of 2020).

The brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2015, an FIR was lodged before the Officer in-Charge Ummulong Police Out Post by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein as complainants to the effect that the Petitioner herein as headman of Khliehtyrshi village has issued residential and birth certificates to the residents which is highly illegal and in disobedience to the order of the High Court of Meghalaya dated 10.12.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014. On being opposed by the said Respondents, the Petitioner has threatened to hurt and defame them. In the said FIR, the Respondent No. 3 has further alleged that the Petitioner has threatened her when she met him near her house and had objected to his illegal claim over the land of Respondent No. 4 herein. Again, on 25.05.2015, the Petitioner has again threatened to hurt the Respondents No. 3 & 4 after they opposed his illegal intention to claim the land of Respondent No. 4. By misusing his powers as headman, he has threatened and used abusive language against Respondents No. 3 & 4. The FIR was registered as Jowai P.S Case No. 127(6) 2015 under Section 188/506 IPC and on investigation being launched and completed, the charge sheet was filed before the court and at the stage of consideration of charges after hearing the parties, the said impugned order was passed.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “By citing the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr: 2021 SCC Online SC 367, this court is inclined to hold that an application for quashing of an order of framing of charge can be proceeded under Section 482 Cr.P.C as is the case in this present petition.In view of the above, this Court on consideration of the matter in its entirety, relying on the authorities cited above, is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that the impugned order suffers from any legal vice and as such, the same is sustained, the instant petition is hereby rejected.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat