Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application. The bare text of Section 482 of the Code reads as under: "482. 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. " It is settled law that the above section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts; what the section does is it merely recognises the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. It is accepted that the High Courts have inherent powers because they are superior courts-of-record. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised. It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised. The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This provision confers the HC with an inherent power to quash an FIR or a complaint, upon satisfaction of well-established parameters that have been laid down in decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab. The parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur includes the following: If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused. If the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offence, which justifies a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. If a criminal proceeding is based on mala fides, or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.Q. In a recent example, the Supreme Court threw out criminal proceedings because it determined that the charges in the FIR were ambiguous and did not meet the requirements to constitute the accused offenses. The application submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC did not reveal the existence of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the incident that caused the disagreement. The petitioner asks the High Court to halt the proceedings by using its inherent authority granted by Section 482 of the CrPC. Make a decision regarding the High Courts ability to use its inherent authority in this case.a)The charges presented in the FIR do not, at first glance, constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may utilize its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.b)The charges mentioned in the FIR do not disclose any cognisable offense, which supports a police investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the High Court may employ its inherent powers to halt the proceedings.c)The claims in the FIR or complaint and the evidence gathered in support of them do not reveal the commission of any crime and do not establish a case against the accused, so the High Court may exercise its inherent authority to halt the proceedings.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.