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 andquot;cloak of criminal offenceandquot; 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: andquot;482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. andmdash; 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. andquot; 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully...

Join the Discussion on the App

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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?

a)
The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.
b)
The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.
c)
The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.
d)
The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: CLAT Mock Test - 8

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions...

In accordance with Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court possesses the authority to utilize its inherent power for the purpose of dismissing criminal proceedings. This may be necessary either to prevent the misuse of the court's process or to ensure the attainment of justice. The Supreme Court has established clear criteria in cases such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, which must be met before the High Court can exercise its inherent power. In the present scenario, if the High Court determines that the allegations outlined in the FIR and the evidence gathered do not reveal the commission of any offense, it has the prerogative to invoke its inherent power and quash the charge sheet. However, the mere existence of a prima facie case against Mr. Y is not a sufficient basis for the High Court to exercise its inherent power. Likewise, the presence of an ongoing civil dispute between the involved parties is not a relevant factor for the utilization of inherent power. While malicious intentions may serve as a rationale for quashing the charge sheet, they do not constitute the sole grounds for such action.

Therefore, option B is the accurate choice.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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.Mr. X lodged a complaint accusing Mr. Y of assaulting and causing him harm. In response to this complaint, Mr. Y, feeling aggrieved, filed an application with the High Court, requesting the quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court rejected Mr. Ys application, prompting Mr. Y to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Your task is to decide whether the Supreme Court should quash the complaint against Mr. Y or not, considering the following options.

View answer

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.

View answer

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.According to the parameters laid down in the passage, under what circumstances can criminal proceedings be quashed?

View answer

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.Which landmark cases are mentioned in the passage as sources for the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. Mr. X initiates an FIR against Mr. Y, alleging him of engaging in cheating and committing a criminal breach of trust. Subsequently, the police conduct an investigation and compile a charge sheet against Mr. Y, based on the evidence gathered during the inquiry. Mr. Y then approaches the High Court, seeking the dismissal of the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations in the FIR and the collected evidence do not reveal the commission of any offense. Which of the following options is accurate?a)The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against Mr. Y.b)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet if it finds that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offense.c)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions.d)The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the charge sheet only if it finds that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam